Re: registering formats in the web [uriMediaType-9] [Fwd: Request for MIME media type Application/Personal Tree - prs.]

Mark Baker wrote:
> 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 am currently biased towards copy and paste or drag-and-drop so this 
may explain my troubles to understand.

As long as the need for parameters does not arise, I think it is safe to 
ignore them.
Only when a pair of applications actually needs a type with parameter, 
will there be the need to support them.

I expect, indeed transfer mechanisms, such as copy-and-paste or 
drag-and-drop libraries, as well as http libraries and intermediates to 
pass them around... but that is not a challenge, or ?

I am not sure I understand what dispatching means in the next paragraph.


> 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.

Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 03:09:03 UTC