W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2011

RE: ACTION-472: New Mime-web-info draft

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:09:51 -0800
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>
CC: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D058EDDD51E@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
So far I haven't heard anything that would make it into
a revision of this document. If you disagree -- and think 
I need to change the document -- could you be more explicit
about what you think I need to say?


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric J. Bowman [mailto:eric@bisonsystems.net] 
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:54 PM
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Jonathan Rees; Larry Masinter; Yves Lafon; Noah Mendelsohn; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACTION-472: New Mime-web-info draft

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.

Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 21:10:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:36 UTC