- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:53:58 -0700
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Nathan wrote: > > Aye, and I guess classing some URIs as "media types" based on the > first x chars of the lexical form of the URI would not be a good idea > (Opacity and all). > It's a fine debate to have on rest-discuss, where we can talk about the various philosophies of how self-descriptive messaging might function, without limiting ourselves to the constraints imposed by HTTP. The HTTP WG would be the right forum to suggest, in the absence of a Content-Type header, falling back to some other header which allows URIs as tokens -- without having anything to do with media types. Here, though, we should treat decisions like the registry being targeted at humans or not being URI-extensible (or existing at all), as having already been made, IMO. -Eric
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 20:54:40 UTC