W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2004

Re: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource")

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:53:58 +0200
Message-ID: <145553552.20041029175358@w3.org>
To: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Cc: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>

On Friday, October 29, 2004, 11:23:30 AM, Stuart wrote:

SW> Joshua Allen wrote:

>>Can't people just mint a URI to stand in for a literal, if they want to
>>assert about that literal?

SW>     data:text/plain,some%20percent%20escaped%20literal%20value

SW> Seems a bit ugly... and has probably been suggested before.

With the proviso that I would prefer


It seems a perfectly fine way to define a literal. Its also a URI, its
moderately compact, the network performance is very good :) it has a
defined media type, its clear exactly what the representation is, its
clear that its always available and does not vary by media type,
referer, time of day, etc.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 15:53:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:06 UTC