Re: Fwd: Three bits on MediaTypes and IANA

> IANA/ISI directory
> IANA has made progress in maintaining a living directory of assignments on
> the Web at . For media types, this
> directory now refers to:
> This is an improvement in that I have greater confidence in the
> persistence of this URI over that of the ISI:
> However, under they now only provide a URI for the top level types
> (and we want a URI for every type and a way to encode their parameters.)
> For example:
> (There's no way to specify text/xml with a URI as one could do under ISI:
>  )

Hmm, odd, it seems some types get their own URI and others don't.
For example, RTF gets one;

A cursory glance of this directory suggests that any media type
registered through an RFC, doesn't get its own media type.
How's that for a disincentive?! 8-)

> Orthogonally, Eastlake has specified a way of mapping media-types and URIs
> amongst each other:
> This draft addresses much of the tricky character encoding and parameter
> issues within a URI but relies on the provision of a new URI scheme
> "Content-Type:" (Additionally, Eastlake provides a URI to Media Type
> mapping which is a neat proof-of-concept but I'm not sure its worth the
> complexity in that spec.)
> Consequently, it'd be best if we could use Eastlake's encoding and
> parameter rules for URIs hosted at (instead of creating a
> Content-Type URI scheme) where there was a single de-referencable URI for
> every registered media type and its possible parameters.

I'm all for more HTTP URIs, though I don't know that Eastlake's encoding
(or any standardized one) is required.  The relationship between;


(or whatever URI structure IANA decides to use)

should be made explicit through linking.  See Tim's Opacity "axiom",
which is quickly becoming a favorite of mine;

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 01:28:21 UTC