W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Feedback on Internet Media Types and the Web

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:39:11 +0000
Message-ID: <4CDABC9F.6070109@webr3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: Toby Inkster <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Nathan wrote:
> XHTML is deployed long since and resolves to the xhtml vocab namespace, 
> so really it just comes down to techs like grddl and rdf(a), and we 
> could easily create a profile in a namespace which asserts that these 
> terms are also known as x & y other URIs, such as in the default RDFa 
> profile - then encourage the communities where it matters to use this 
> namespace/profile. This would also prove to be interoperable with any 
> approach either IANA/IETF or whatwg took, as we can simply assert the 
> equivalence.

Toby Inkster (cc'd) has been working on an XHTML Vocabulary and Profile:


This includes all XHTML link rels (and POWDER describedby), maps them to 
RDFa terms, iana link relations, and includes full subclasses which 
extend over multiple vocabs such as creative commons, dublin core, rdfs 
and includes the XHTML Role Module and Accessible Rich Internet 
Applications Vocabulary.

That covers virtually everything apart from "edit" afaict.



> Larry Masinter wrote:
>> It seems to me that there's a "problem" with the mechanisms
>> of registration when a registry that has technical or administrative
>> criteria for acceptance, but software can get deployed without
>> registration and then later discovered that the application doesn't
>> meet the established rules.
>> And it seems like the list of deployed MIME types that aren't registered
>> (and whose registration has been rejected or would be) is reasonably 
>> long.
>> I think an "architectural principle" of avoiding registries in
>> W3C -- by using URIs instead of registries, for things such as
>> namespaces -- has also met with some resistance, and there remain
>> in the web architecture many key namespaces which require some
>> amount of administration and disagreement about who and how
>> those namespaces are controlled; controlling the availability and
>> mapping of names in namespaces is one way in which (distributed)
>> extensibility is controlled. (Perhaps it is the *primary* way
>> in which distributed extensibility is controlled.)
>> We're now seeing a struggle in the HTML5/IETF/IANA space over
>> the registry for link relations, and whether the link relations
>> are registered by IANA, W3C, a wiki, or some other process.
>> I'm wondering if a broader look at the role of registries
>> in the web architecture, in the face of various deployment
>> models, might give us some better insights about how to address
>> the problems:
>> registered namespaces: URI schemes, HTTP headers, link
>> relations, xpointer tokens, MIME types
>> standards-track-only namespaces: element & attribute names
>> in any particular HTML/XML language, HTTP error codes...
>> Requirements:
>> * longevity & reliability of the registration information
>> * process for maintaining technical requirements for registered
>>   values
>> * ease of registering new values, even when they don't
>>   meet technical requirements
>> * technical, social, security review of registered entries
>> * avoiding registration spam, drift of control
>> * avoiding incompatible use of registered values in
>>  different contexts
>> * dealing with trademarks
>> Larry
>> -- 
>> http://larry.masinter.net
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nathan [mailto:nathan@webr3.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 
>> 2010 4:16 PM
>> To: Henri Sivonen
>> Cc: Larry Masinter; julian.reschke@gmx.de; www-tag@w3.org WG; Alexey 
>> Melnikov
>> Subject: Re: Feedback on Internet Media Types and the Web
>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> Another case of deployment happening ahead of registration
>> not to mention the various rss types, and the types for all variations 
>> of RDF other than rdf+xml, and the media type for things like 
>> opensearch [1].
>> The question was asked, recently, how one would go about deploying a 
>> new mediatype, and which type to use whilst being a future web 
>> standard, but no reply was given [2,3], similarly after many years, 
>> the other RDF serializations like N3 and Turtle remain unregistered, 
>> and likewise re opensearch.
>> To illustrate the effect this has, currently to figure out what the 
>> true media type is of some returned RDF, one needs to check for the 
>> following:
>> application/rdf+xml, application/xml, text/xml
>>   -> hopefully rdf+xml
>> text/turtle, application/x-turtle, application/turtle, text/rdf+n3, 
>> text/n3, application/n3:
>>   -> n3 or turtle
>> text/rdf, text/text, text/plain, text/html, ""
>>   -> could be anything
>> and that's only to negotiate between rdf/xml, n3 and turtle.
>> Best,
>> Nathan
>> [1] http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1 
>> (application/opensearchdescription+xml - This type is pending IANA 
>> registration. - (for a very long time!)
>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01103.html
>> [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01102.html
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 15:40:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:36 UTC