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

Re: Media types and extensibility

To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Media types and extensibility
From: Joe Gregorio <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:40:58 -0400
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@xxxxxxx>, Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

-----Original Message----- From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Gregorio Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:23 PM To: Mark Baker Cc: Atom-Syntax Syntax Subject: Re: Media types and extensibility

Since the application/atom+xml media type is currently unregistered, and won't be registered until the format is complete, that is to say all the above issues have been addressed, I don't believe a new media type is required.

So you are asserting that Atom will never need to go past version 1.0?


What connection, if any, do you
see between media type registration and version number?

-joe

References:
- RE: Media types and extensibility
  - From: Dare Obasanjo

Prev by Date: RE: Media types and extensibility
Next by Date: Re: PaceServiceError GET vs. POST (was Re: AtomPubIssuesList)
Previous by thread: RE: Media types and extensibility
Next by thread: RE: Media types and extensibility
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread