- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:04:05 +0100
- To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 6:00:14 AM, Eric wrote: EJB> Larry Masinter wrote: >> +xml got defined, for better or worse, without prior" groundwork". EJB> As an experiment. The experiment was a success. The standard needs to EJB> be updated to account for this success, so that the registry stays EJB> current with modern expectations based on that success. There was no EJB> need to define +suffix before +xml came along, i.e. no need for prior EJB> groundwork. Now that +xml *has* defined +suffix, it's time to adopt EJB> that definition in general, to lay the groundwork for insisting that EJB> they be defined uniformly (as opposed to +suffix meaning whatever any EJB> given media type says it means, in which case what's the point of the EJB> syntax even existing). In addition to +json I have seen requests for types that included +zip (EPUB for instance). I agree with Eric that a bit more needs to be said about suffixes in general and with Larry that something specific needs to be said about +json in particular (and +zip also, in a different document). -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 12:03:17 UTC