ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: reason for application/iotp-xml (was RE: Registration of MIME med ia type APPLICATION/IOTP)

2000-03-11 13:01:09
On 3/10/00 at 7:57 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:

 > Again, I'm not especially supportive of the frob as I fail to see very much
 utility in it. But I also don't oppose it. I see it as "mostly harmless".

here's the question: say someone else wants to define another frob,
and it's orthogonal to xml.  does a type that uses both the new
frob and the xml frob then become application/foo-xml-newfrob
or application/foo-newfrob-xml?

Oy. The mind reels at what the MIME parsing code for this looks like.

I've really got to agree with Keith here; this is a mess and I oppose the direction it is taking. If XML-ishness needs to be called out as a property of a body part, it should be separated out as a parameter of some sort, or made a new field, not embedded as part of the name of a content-type. I know where in our code I can dispatch off of a parameter or a new field; that's easy. Dispatching off part of a name would be grotesque.

There are mechanisms in MIME to call out properties like this. Why are we trying to embed this particular one in the name instead of using the mechanisms that MIME provides?

pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Eudora Engineering - QUALCOMM Incorporated
Ph: (217)337-6377 or (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

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