- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:53:18 -0400
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
Roy Fielding writes: > Where ambiguity might be present, bare name fragments always refer to the semantics defined by the specific media type. My impression is that Norm's preference is: Where ambiguity might be present, bare name fragments always refer to the semantics defined for generic processing per 3023bis; thus the semantics for each specific media type SHOULD be the same as the generic, at least insofar as the syntax overlaps. Have I misunderstood you, Norm? Noah On 10/5/2010 3:45 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Where ambiguity might > be present, bare name fragments always refer to the semantics defined > by the specific media type.
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 19:53:52 UTC