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