Re: Fwd: Three bits on MediaTypes and IANA

On Tuesday 15 January 2002 01:29, Mark Baker wrote:
> 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-)

Yes, it seems that the link for a specific sub-type points to an email 
request, but if it is in an RFC the link isn't provided.

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

When you're encoding characters in a URI you sometimes might have to do 
some escaping and such.

> The relationship between;
> and
> (or whatever URI structure IANA decides to use)
> should be made explicit through linking.

What do you mean through linking?


Joseph Reagle Jr.       
W3C Policy Analyst      
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair
W3C XML Encryption Chair

Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 12:34:12 UTC