- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 11:11:11 +0100
- To: "Garret Wilson" <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 08:43 AM 4/8/02 -0400, Garret Wilson wrote:
>Brian,
>
>The adoption of the "application/rdf+xml" MIME type makes sense for general
>RDF, just as "text/xml" makes sense for general XML.
>
>There have been later recommendations that "+xml" be appended to MIME types
>for specific applications of XML (as evident in the new RDF MIME type above
>when RDF is serialized as XML). Has there been any thought of making a
>similar recommendation ("application/...+rdf+xml") for specific
>applications of RDF? For instance, this would
>allow "application/pics+rdf+xml", "application/xpackage+rdf+xml",
>and "application/annotea+rdf+xml".
Garret,
I have yet to be convinced that this would be a Good Thing.
But, thinking aloud so to speak, one situation where I can conceive this
approach *might* be useful is if specific applications (such as your
XPackage work?) are defined to use a subset of the RDF/XML syntax. Thus,
programs that process application/rdf+xml MUST handle the full gamut of RDF
syntax. But other MIME types of the form you suggest might be used for
restricted syntaxex that are designed to be processable using ordinary XML
tools or generic RDF processors?
#g
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 08:39:03 UTC