Steve Vinoski changes his mind:
At the end of the day, I understand the various explanations for why decentralizing media types is not a good idea after all, and I agree with them.
Stu Charlton believes there’s merit to the idea, if not the exact implementation:
- There are many that feel a need to introduce a standardized “more information on this representation” hook , beyond just the IANA media type.
- A URI likely is the best candidate format for this hook.
- Other media types are already offering this feature inside the representation body (e.g. XMLNS declarations, GRDDL declarations in HTML) ….
- … But to work best with the deployed web, and to be most general-purpose, it seems this URI should be somewhere in the HTTP header.
- The debate is mostly matter of whether a) there is such a thing as a general purpose “more info on this media type” resource , and b) if so, where to place the link, so that it fits well with the deployed Web and doesn’t necessarily cause problems for a future Semantic Web.
Dan Diephouse has no problem being uncool:
There is this idea that we should stay far far away from anything that even remotely reminds anyone of WSDL (even if its not an IDL) because it can be misused. I can’t believe that no one isn’t throwing up their arms against this idea. I suppose this will make me very non-cool, but just because a tool can be used in a bad way doesn’t means that you should never use it.
James Snell is opposed to the whole idea:
The key is to focus on solving specific, real world problems as opposed to coming up with kitchen sink solutions that are so generalized that they’re of no use to anyone.