Re: Atom Content Negotiation (follow-up)

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

hello.

On 2011-05-03 7:05, Hadrien Gardeur wrote:
> Sure, it's not likely at all to happen in the mid term, but with media
> parameters you're not "breaking" anything either. If we want those
> specifications to evolve, we need more examples and people interested in
> those parameters. The AtomPub spec with its "type" parameter for Atom is a
> good start but we need to go further.

like i said before, philosophically, i do agree that this would be 
cleaner and the better approach. but we would need to update the atom 
spec which, as i am reading it, does not allow for extensibility of 
media type parameters:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-7 says that the only allowed 
parameter is "charset". i think the way to go for all of this to be nice 
and clean would be to add a "content-type" parameter, which as a value 
would have a media type (the media type of the content embedded or 
linked to by the feed). this raises two questions:

- is that kind of parameter value even allowed in a media type? and if 
it is, how many media type parsers might possibly break because a media 
type would contain "two media types"?

- how realistic is it to update RFC 4287 in that way, which as i 
understand it would not be backwards compatible?

if that was a realistic way to go, even things such as 
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#rel-alternate might need to be 
updated, so that the new features would be allowed/supported (and 
shouldn't HTML5 allow the optional charset parameter that is possible 
according to RFC 4287?).

any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated. kind regards,

dret.

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