In <01JMZJU6AN6Y0000EX(_at_)MAUVE(_dot_)INNOSOFT(_dot_)COM>
ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com writes:
Surely not! This has a bunch of problems:
(1) It effectively defines a content-type parameter that spans multiple
top-level content types. This is against the rules.
But what if that is the way the real world operates? You can't say that,
just because MIME has such a rule, then the real world is constrained to
stick with data types that fit within that rule. The real world ain't
like that. So maybe the time has come to review the rule.
(2) It encodes information in a parameter that is immutable -- that is,
every instance of application/iotp is XML. Such information is supposed
to be part of the name; it is not what parameter are intended for.
Well is it immutable (I don't know)? Is every IOTP object also an XML
object? Or do the classes IOTP-but-not-XML and XML-but-not-iotp exist? And
is it the case that all the other object types that might have XML
representations *always* have those representations?
(3) It tends to discourage proper content-type labelling -- why bother when
the XML flag is all you need?
Indeed. If it is the case that all these things you are talking about are
always best and most conveniently regarded as subtypes of XML, then fine.
But people seem to be saying that this is not so.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Web:
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5