Re: [apps-discuss] New Version Notification for draft-wilde-xml-patch-00.txt

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

hello ned.

On 2013-01-14 20:33 , Ned Freed wrote:
> Since in fact we do have such a registry now, you can take that as given.
> And the use of the suffix is now a SHOULD; you can only not do it if you
> have a
> very good reason for that choice. I personally don't think that name
> consistency with other types is even close to rising to that level; YMMV.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-08 
is what you're referring to and this one is going to get published soon, 
right? in that case you'd recommend to go the xml-patch+xml way for the 
subtype, i guess?

i am really wondering how this is going to play out for RDF, have their 
been discussions on how to handle this case (multiple serializations of 
the same data model) for the suffix registry? the reason why i am asking 
is that RDF needs a patch type as well, and there it will become an 
issue how to handle the fact that usually, a patch type's semantics are 
targeted at a model, while the type's syntax is based on some specific 
serialization.

thanks and cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[e-mail]  -  tel:[phone] |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |