- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:08:56 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
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. thanks paul > 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 03:09:03 UTC