- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:38:52 -0700
- To: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Bob Ferris wrote: > > schrieb Eric J. Bowman: > > Nathan wrote: > >> > >> Ideally they wouldn't, they'd use "text/html" as normal, and to > >> find the related RFC/spec (rather than googling) they'd simply > >> lookup http://media-type-registry.w3.org/text/html which would > >> redirect through to the relevant specification. > >> > > > > Which relevant specification? What would the URI equivalent of > > text/html "point to"? > > Something like http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt ? > You can't assume a 1:1 mapping, which brings us back to, what media type does the following URI indicate? http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt If all media type definitions were 1:1 like text/html, different story. But they aren't, which means this change would result in a different architecture than currently exists (where such assumptions don't hold true, because media types were never meant as first-class objects). -Eric
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 00:39:33 UTC