- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:53:58 +0200
- 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 data:text/plain;charset="utf-8",some%20percent%20escaped%20literal%20value 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