Thanks for catching that. My first draft had a story about someone
publishing a JPEG and changing it to a GIF, getting stuck with the old
URI, and having the wrong renderer called. I decided that was too bizarre
and switched to the "buggy XML" example. I missed a couple of references
to "image"s that were left from the original. Both are now fixed in
place, I.e. I didn't allocate a new dated URI, but all current copies (XML
and HTML) are updated in CVS. Thanks again.
--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Dan Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
05/11/06 06:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [email protected], Stuart Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [metadataInURI-31] New editors draft for
Metadata In URIs Finding
-cc www-tag (prolly editorial, not worth lots of attention),
+cc www-archive (feel free to cite/forward)
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 18:02 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31
"A correctly written browser would have shown the faulty XML as text, or
might conceivably have shown a warning about the apparent mismatch
between the type inferred from the URI and the returned Content-Type of
the image."
image? typo? And I don't see any possible mismatch. Copy-and-paste-o?
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
