At 21:54 04/10/27, Keith Moore wrote:
>> My preferred approach would be to give archived-at the same parameter
list that MIME fields have, and define a "content-type=x/y" parameter
naming a type expected to be available. For a list that provides archives
in two forms and uses fancy HTTP to provide the right one, the field could
be like this:
>>
>> Archived-At: ...; content-type=message/rfc822, content-type=text/html
>>
>> For a less fancy archive providing both forms under separate URLs, two
Archived-At fields could be used:
>>
>> Archived-At: ...; content-type=message/rfc822
>> Archived-At: ...; content-type=text/html
>
>I think this is needlessly complex.
I agree. It's also not how URIs and the Web work.
>Just provide the archives in 822 format.
This is one possible solution, but not the only one.
Regards, Martin.