ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: POINT OF ORDER - multiple types

1991-09-17 14:17:58
Excerpts from direct: 17-Sep-91 Re: POINT OF ORDER - multip.. Jim
Knowles(_at_)trident(_dot_)arc(_dot_) (1970)

I don't see the
Content-type as useless at all.  It names the type of the most vital
resource needed to present the body part, i.e., the application.

I didn't mean to say that the Content-type header was useless, but that
the "type" field of the Content-type header would become useless,
because it could not be used in such a manner as to present accurate
information as to the viewing resources necessary for the document being
sent.  You are absolutely right in saying that the format of the
document is the really important information.  In fact, I wouldn't mind
dropping the "type" field altogether.  I'm just saying that if it is
there, we might as well define it so that it can be useful.

   Content-type:  TEXT,AUDIO,IMAGE/ANDREW

This I don't like.  It seems to put an extra burden on the parser just
to handle this case.  Are you expecting some application other than
Andrew to handle this body part?  Then why not Application/Andrew_handler?

Yes, there is an extra burden of finding the several types in the
comma-separated list.  I'm claiming that this kind of case will become
common as more mixed-media formats are used in the world -- it shouldn't
be regarded as peculiar to Andrew format.  Think of

    Content-type: TEXT,IMAGE/POSTSCRIPT

for instance.

I still don't see the advantage.  Any multi-media application should take
care of checking out the necessary resources.  What are you buying here?

The ability for the mail reader to know, without having to understand
the format, what resources are necessary for the user to work with this
message.

Bill



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>