RE: RDF Issue: mime-types-for-rdf-docs

A few thoughts bout that mime-type issue.

First, often thought of XML as an "encoding" mime-type for other
"abstract" mime-types.
This "encoding" idea came to me from the HTTP protocol:
you can get a text/html document, which is encoded in application/gzip.

Similarly, why not consider a mime-type application/svg, which would be
encoded in text/xml (which could, in turn, be encoded in
application/gzip).

The main difference is that application/svg would *need* to be encoded,
hence my qualifying it of "abstract" mime-type.

On the other hand, with RDF, we see very well that several encoding
(like text/xml or text/n3) would be possible for the same abstract type
(say, application/rdf).


I guess this is what the "+" notation is informally trying to do, and I
know this issue is outside the simple scope of RDF, but would that be a
good idea to generalize this "encoding" concept, already encountered by
two communities (HTTP and RDF) into a standard notation,
something like
  application/pics//application/rdf//text/xml//application/gzip


  Pierre-Antoine

Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 15:17:27 UTC