- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:04:30 -0400
- To: "Marc de Graauw" <marc@marcdegraauw.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On 4/23/07, Marc de Graauw <marc@marcdegraauw.com> wrote: > > In the minutes it says: > > | Marc de Graauw wrote an article on xml.com, spurred in part > | by our earlier discussions. He proposes you give not a single > | version, but indicate each > | version that you believe the document conforms to. > > One correction: the gist of what I'm saying is not indicate each version > sender believes the document _conforms_ to, but each version (or more > general: language capability) the sender _requires_ the receiver to > understand. AFAICT, that's more or less what happens in the existing Web architecture. HTTP messages carrying a document also normally include a media type, which is essentially a name for a series of compatible versions (e.g. "text/html" as a shortcut for HTML 2 + 3.2 + 4.01 + 5 etc..). The difference from what you describe there is that the sender isn't *requiring* the receiver to understand the media type, it simply declares that the representation is to be interpreted using the semantics associated with that type. Minor difference though, I think. Mark.
Received on Friday, 11 May 2007 01:04:35 UTC