Re: [metadataInURI-31] New editors draft for Metadata In URIs Finding

Thanks for catching that.  My first draft had a story about someone 
publishing a JPEG and changing it to a GIF, getting stuck with the old 
URI, and having the wrong renderer called.  I decided that was too bizarre 
and switched to the "buggy XML" example.  I missed a couple of references 
to "image"s that were left from the original.  Both are now fixed in 
place, I.e. I didn't allocate a new dated URI, but all current copies (XML 
and HTML) are updated in CVS.  Thanks again.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
05/11/06 06:18 PM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     www-archive@w3.org, Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
        Subject:        Re: [metadataInURI-31] New editors draft for 
Metadata In URIs        Finding


-cc www-tag (prolly editorial, not worth lots of attention),
+cc www-archive (feel free to cite/forward)

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 18:02 -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
[...]
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31


"A correctly written browser would have shown the faulty XML as text, or
might conceivably have shown a warning about the apparent mismatch
between the type inferred from the URI and the returned Content-Type of
the image."

image? typo? And I don't see any possible mismatch. Copy-and-paste-o?


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 01:38:22 UTC