On 17 May 2011, at 19:56, Erik Wilde wrote:
> > hello mo. > > thanks for the email. > > On 2011-05-17 11:50 , Mo McRoberts wrote: >> I've only been half-following this debate, but it strikes me that there's >> perhaps a certain degree of crossover with the HTTP “Alternates” header: >> http://gewis.win.tue.nl/~koen/conneg/draft-ietf-http-alternates-00.html > > not really. this addresses the question of resources being available in > alternate media types. the main problem in the suggestion i was making is > that everything is always packaged in atom XML, so the media type from an > HTTP point of view is always atom. think of it as the equivalent of how to > communicate that you have a web page with flash animations, and one with > animated GIFs. both are using the HTML media type, but something inside of > them is different, and afaik, there is no generic web/HTTP way how to > communicate this (i.e., being able to say: over there, there's an equivalent > web page, but it has flash in it). oh right, I see - so it's actually the description of *encapsulated* media types. my apologies! M.
