Re: Media types

On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 19:08, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:31:10PM -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 18:18, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > > I think the mistake is in assigning such messages a type that implies
> > > it should be handled by a generic XML processor.  There is no such thing,
> > 
> > No such thing?  There are all kinds of processing gidgets and storage
> > systems that work on XML generically.  You might want to choose more
> > precise language.
> There are all types of procesing gadgets and storage systems that work on
> bytes generically.  If that was a useful distinction at the message level
> then there wouldn't have been any need for media types.  

Sure.  But I hope you've noticed that XML is perhaps slightly more than
bytes - and perhaps even a "useful distinction at the message level".

If not, I'm not sure I really want to send my nouns to your limited set
of verbs.

Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!

Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 19:16:17 UTC