On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Jakob Voss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ross Singer wrote:
>>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>> <formats xmlns="http://unapi.info/">
>>> <format name="foaf" uri="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"/>
>> I generally agree with this, but what about formats that aren't XML or
>> RDF based? How do I also say that you can grab my text/x-vcard? Or
>> my application/marc record? There is still lots of data I want that
>> doesn't necessarily have these characteristics.
> In my blog posting I included a way to specify mime types (such as as
> text/x-vcard or application/marcURI) as URI. According to RFC 2220 the
> application/marc type refers to the "harmonized USMARC/CANMARC
> specification" whatever this is - so the mime type can be used as format
> identifier. For vCard there is an RDF namespace and a (not very nice) XML
> vcard-temp (see http://xmpp.org/registrar/namespaces.html)
This is vCard as RDF, not vCard the format (which is text based). It
would be the equivalent of saying, "here's an hCard, it's the same
thing, right?" although the reason I may be requesting a vCard in its
native format is because I have a vCard parser or an application that
consumes them (Exchange, for example).
> That depends whether you want to be taken serious outside the library
> community and target at the web as a whole or not.
My point is that there's a step before that, possibly, where the
"theory" behind unAPI, Jangle, whatever, is tested to even see if it's
going in the right direction before writing it up formally as an RFC.
I don't think the lack of adoption of unAPI has anything to do with
the prose of it's specification document. The RFC format is useful
for later adopters, but people that, say, jumped on the Atom
syndication format as a good idea didn't need an RFC first, they
developed a spec, /then/ wrote the standard once they had an idea of
how it needed to work.