- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:34:11 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
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; > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/rtf > > 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; > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/plain > > and > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/plain?charset="foo" > > (or whatever URI structure IANA decides to use) > > should be made explicit through linking. What do you mean through linking? -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 12:34:12 UTC