- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:38:12 -0800
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote: > Also, from RFC 3023 (section 1): > [[ > Similarly, XML will be used as a foundation for other media types, > including types in every branch of the IETF media types tree. To > facilitate the processing of such types, media types based on XML, > but that are not identified using text/xml or application/xml, SHOULD > be named using a suffix of '+xml' as described in Section 7. This > will allow XML-based tools -- browsers, editors, search engines, and > other processors -- to work with all XML-based media types. > ]] > -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt > > I don't think a similar case can be made for either RDF or N3 (for different > reasons). > Funny, I thought that a similar line of reasoning was obvious for RDF/N3. Let's say that I have a "recipe" format that stores recipes for my recipe application. Or maybe I have a configuration file type for my operating system. If they were to have content types of application/recipe+rdf+n3 and application/config+rdf+n3, respectively, couldn't I edit them in a general RDF editor that could read N3, even if I didn't have MyRecipeApplication or MyOSConfigEditor handy? Garret
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 22:39:18 UTC