On 24/09/2009, at 7:37 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
It would certainly be an improvement, though I'm still unconvinced
that we
want different definitions for the same link type for different MIME
types. Difference conformance classes, sure, but that's another issue.
Yes, that's the tricky part; there would be a tendency to define
different meanings for different mime types, no matter how clearly
it's stated that the additional information was restricted to the
interpretation/implementation of the relations.
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
