Re: [xri] Comparison Rules

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Will Norris <willnorris@google.com> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:

Will Norris wrote on 2010-02-18:

> any thoughts on this last issues regarding media type (item 'c' in
> Drummond's list)? This is the only outstanding issue I have for this
> set of changes.

As I recall the conversation, 2616 was the only likely place to reference
for any rules on comparisons. I wasn't sure what your suggestion was, or
whether you were identifying an issue with using it.

I was mainly looking for any feedback regarding the question:

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Will Norris <willnorris@google.com> wrote:

Should we be referencing 2616 instead of 2046, for the initial definition of 'type' in XRD? That might actually make a lot of sense, since 2046 doesn't actually define the syntax of a media type... that's in 2045 (as well as 2616, of course).

actually, referencing rfc4288 might be better... that's what Atom does. Strangely 4288 talks about media type parameters, but doesn't define the ABNF for declaring them. And Web-Linking imports the ABNF definitions for 'type-name' and 'subtype-name', and then uses them in its own ABNF (which again, is unclear if that allows for parameters). I'm certainly not trying to over-complicate what should be a relatively simple thing, but the more I get into this, the more confusing it seems to get. Perhaps we can just discuss it on the call.

-will

xri message