On 3/13/00 at 2:13 PM -0800, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com wrote:
(3) It tends to discourage proper content-type labelling -- why
bother when the XML flag is all you need?
If this were actually true, then why not have the defined
Content-Type be "application/xml" with a parameter of
"xml-content=iotp"? If the XML is all you need to know,
"application/xml" would let you know that you can act on this part;
if you want to dispatch to a particular XML program (like an IOTP
application), then the parameter will be enough for you to do that.
My guess is that the IOTP people will say, "No, we need to know from
the Content-Type that it's IOTP so we can dispatch to IOTP
applications easily with existing code." If their argument is
correct, then proper Content-Type labelling will be forced to
Argument #3, BTW, perfectly well applies to "application/iotp-xml":
If it really is true that "the XML flag is all you need", then we can
expect to see "application/octet-stream-xml" for everything that even
remotely smells like XML before long.
I think this argument against labeling outside of type/subtype (be it
a parameter, a Content-Disposition, or some other Content-* field)
just doesn't hold water. The idea of parsing subtype names makes me
think of parsing Subject fields for content; it's the wrong place to
embed real information.
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Eudora Engineering - QUALCOMM Incorporated
Ph: (217)337-6377 or (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102