Sigh. In a pleasant, relaxing, weekend, I had finally decided to throw
in the towel and stop objecting to a content-charset header, in the
interest of peace and consensus. This morning I come in only to find
that there's no consensus there, and that Mark won't let me back down...
Is there anyone for whom the attribute/value syntax is a show-stopper?
Certainly I can live with it, and apparently Mark can't live with the
alternative. How about moving all charset information into
attribute/value pairs, and merging text & text-plus? Whose ox does that
gore?
As to Mark's suggestion that we simplify the entire content-type syntax
to something like
type [/subtype] *[attribute=value]
The only thing this really afects is the multipart type, which is the
only one for which anything else is currently defined. Does anyone
object to adopting Mark's change, and making multipart something like
multipart/mixed ; boundary=foobar
In the interests of peace, harmony, and consensus, I am prepared to
accept all of these changes.
In another matter, Alain Fontaine has convinced me that a checksum would
be a good idea. I'm inclined to do this via a separate (and
optional/ignorable, for those who so desire) Content-checksum header.
Does anyone object to this? Is it necessary to include this as part of
the RFC, or can we allow it to be added by a later RFC?
-- Nathaniel