RE: link metadata cannot override server media type

Dan,

Hopefully you didn't intend your comments to sound as inflamatory as they might be interpreted.

HTML and SMIL are in clear conflict on their use of the type attribute.  Other specifications do not make a clear statement either way.  I have not seen a
clear statement from the TAG yet.  I have seen substantial email threads debating this issue in different working groups without clear consensus.

As is documented in the comments, we did work to address this question with Martin.  The working group did choose to follow the language and use from SMIL
for the reason that practically speaking not all web servers return the right MIME type for the content.  If you are not satisfied with the details provided
in the response, we would certainly be happy to discuss it further.

I personally would welcome the TAG addressing this issue and I would be very willing to participate in such a discussion.

Brad



> RE: link metadata cannot override server media type
>
> From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
> Date: Fri, Feb 07 2003
>
>    * Previous message: Scott McGlashan: "RE: link metadata cannot override server media type"
>    * In reply to: Scott McGlashan: "RE: link metadata cannot override server media type"
>    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>    * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
>    * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> To: Scott McGlashan <scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com>
> Cc: www-voice@w3.org, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Stuart Williams <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Date: 07 Feb 2003 10:43:05 -0800
> Message-Id: <1044643386.795.12.camel@jammer>
> Subject: RE: link metadata cannot override server media type
>
> On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 07:07, Scott McGlashan wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Thank you for your public comments on SRGS 1.0.
> >
> > This issue has been discussed many times within the group. It is
> > explicitly discussed in the Last Call Disposition of Comments -
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/06/speech-grammar-comments.html#GC09-20 - where
> > we took into account the W3C Director's requested modification. Since
> > the SMIL 2.0 Recommendation uses 'type' in a similar way, we believe
> > there are other specs which set the precedence and, at this stage, no
> > 'fix' is required.
>
> I disagree; I don't find this a satisfactory justification for
> declining my request. In fact, I don't see any technical
> justification the way the spec is at all.
>
> > However, if further evidence comes to light, please
> > let us know.
>
> No, the burden is on you to (attempt to) satisfy me.
>
> "5.2.4 Proposed Recommendation (PR)
>
> Entrance criteria. Before advancing a technical report to Proposed
> Recommendation, the Director must be satisfied that:
>
> [...]
>    2. the Working Group has formally addressed issues raised during the
> previous review or implementation period (possibly modifying the
> technical report)"
>  -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#RecsCR
>
> If you aren't interested in negotiating further based
> on the information I sent, be sure to note this as
> outstanding dissent when you request Proposed
> Rec status.
>
> > The SRGS testsuite already contains tests for this feature.
>
> Pointer, please?
>
> > Scott
> > Co-Chair, VBWG
> > Co-Editor, SRGS 1.0
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    * Previous message: Scott McGlashan: "RE: link metadata cannot override server media type"
>    * In reply to: Scott McGlashan: "RE: link metadata cannot override server media type"
>    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>    * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
>    * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 15:00:48 UTC