- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:53:59 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 08.02.2011 13:04, Chris Lilley wrote: > 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). > ... My understanding is that we only need to define a notation if there's a common way to handle those media types. I can see that for +xml and +json, but I am not so sure about +zip... Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 12:54:40 UTC