- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:58:50 -0500
- To: paul@activemath.org
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On 2/18/06, Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org> wrote: > Mark Baker wrote > > Are you perhaps thinking that the URI in the parameter could be used > > to dispatch applications? If so, I don't think that's workable as > > virtually all (AFAICT) software that dispatches off media types, does > > it off the media type name independent of the value of any parameters. > > > can you be more precise here ? > Does this mean that some intermediates loose the parameters ? > Or does this mean that applications don't use ? The latter, yes. > In the latter case, it's just a matter, for the applications, to use it. > Or ? Well, that's a whole lot of deployed code to change. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, it would seem to require a coordinated upgrade of all software otherwise you'd have the upgraded part of the Web behaving incompatibly with the non-upgraded part. I'd also argue that it's correct to ignore the parameters for dispatching. The media type name (minus parameters) is basically an alias for a compatible sequence of specifications (e.g. "text/html" vs. HTML 2.0, HTML 3.2, HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, ...), and so it makes sense to associate that with a chunk of software which can process those specifications. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 02:58:54 UTC