[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No new mime types





On 9 Jul 2006, at 22:45, Joe Gregorio wrote:

On 7/9/06, Henry Story <henry.story@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Here is a suggestion. APP should define no new mime types. XML can
just be served as application/xml  if needed. If there is a need to
identify the type of object at the end of a relation new relation
types should be defined.


Mime-types are used for dispatching on the web, without
looking into the entity body to determine how to
dispatch. It's a fundamental precept of the web.

"I don't like it" is not a reason to change the spec.

Here is a question then to help explain my queasiness.

If I invent a new format for describing dogs say

<dog>
   <age>...</age>
   <master>...</master>
...
</dog>

do I need a new mime type?

What about if I invent a new xml format for cats?
And the same for animals?
And what about for bank statements?
And for describing buildings?
And for describing bodily parts? One more?
And football matches?

Where do we stop?
We will end up having over an denumerable number of mime types if we continue this way.

Why is it then that in rdf I can do all of the above with just the same mime type? (yes there are a few different serializations but you can count them on one hand.)

So should we not rather define the rel relation to point us to a resource that contains the information we want, and not have to bother with the ways that information is represented there?
Leave it to the client to decide what format he likes.



You have in now way argued that a new mime-type will hurt
interop or violate the architecture of the web.

So how would an infinite numbers of mime types help interoperability?

  -joe

Henry


--
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org