Excerpts from ext.ietf-822: 14-Nov-91 Re: PostScript (Was: Re: au..
This is already provided for in the PostScript Document Structuring
Conventions. Specifically, a conformant level 2 document must include
Sounds good enough to me. As long as this is required in the document,
I agree there's no need for the attribute list. Thanks for the correction
and info. I look forward to reading your paper.
Hmm... Don't move too fast. If this attribute is only in the document,
the UA is forced to understand PS (admittedly, to some minor degree).
If the attribute were in the header, a format which the UA is already
expected to understand, it could make a decision about which PS
interpreter/viewer/whatever to invoke without having to look at the body.
I think this is an important point to understand. I expect to see a lot
of mail configuration files that map information from the Content-type
header (types, subtypes, and attributes) to message-body
viewers/printers/applications. The UA itself would know zilch about
such formats. I'd be upset with any system that forced the UA to
understand how to parse (even to a *real limited* extent) a particular
Of course, in the PS case, a dummy application outside the UA could
parse the document and do the right thing.