- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:51:00 +0000
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Mark, A very quick response: Yes it's important. Important enough to take time to get it right. Much of the pushback came from outside the RDFcore WG. Sorry to be so terse... out of time here. #g -- At 10:07 11/03/04 -0500, Mark Baker wrote: > > Under the circumstances, I feel this is as far as the current consensus > > extends, and that we really don't want to delay registration of the MIME > > type any further. > >Thanks Graham, I wasn't aware of much of that history. > >I'm a bit confused about why there couldn't be concensus on this though, >since in the recent discussions on this topic it seems that most folks >are resigned to the fact that application/rdf+xml documents *do* assert >the triples they encapsulate. > >Would it help if those on the WG who didn't agree with this view were >given the opportunity to create another RDF/XML media type which didn't >assert triples? > >I think this is pretty important, and more important than getting the >registration out (since people are using it, and I haven't observed any >interop problems with it). Ambiguity in media types is not a nice >thing. > >Mark. ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 16:14:19 UTC