Hello Arnt,
As I pointed out in a separate message, providing type information
with an URI is a bad idea because it inhibits future developments.
Regards, Martin.
At 19:25 04/10/27, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>Arnt Gulbrandsen writes:
>> (That doesn't necessarily mean that the retrieved object must have a
certain content-type. I can imagine other ways to achieve the same end.)
>
>That was stupid of me. Concrete suggestions beat handwaving. Sorry.
>
>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
>
>For today's usual sort of archive, the expected content-type would be
text/html by default:
>
>Archived-At: ...
>
>Arnt
>