Larry Masinter wrote:
[snip]
I think maybe we should go back to a very simple question:
what are MIME types for?
I thought at one point that they were to describe file types.
If that is indeed the case, it might be a good idea to describe file types
as
accurately and completely as possible.
[snip]
Agreed. But I think "describe file types as accurately and completely as
possible" should refer ONLY to the format of the content of the "file",
NOT to possible usages of that content.
Disagree. "as accurately and completely as possible" is not a goal.
"Provide the minimum information necessary for a recipient to be able
to decide on an appropriate processor for an incoming message". Web
browsing was close enough to mail reading to use the same typing mechanism.
Different applications may require more specific information to
decide on how to process other kinds of data, but that information
should not be added to, or required to be supplied as part of, the
MIME type.
I agree with this. Within an agent, once the basic container has been
determined, the agent will examine the contents further to figure out
how to process the content. Part of this is parsing the XML data
stream. While an agent might have a single XML parser, it might not.
And it doesn't matter. Agents need to know a lot more than we could or
should put in a mime type in order to faithfully reflect the intent of
the content author. The HTML Working Group and the IETF Conneg groups
are both working on ways to reveal this additional information. Let's
provide them with the basic tools to let them do their jobs.
--
Shane P. McCarron phone: +1 612 434-4431
Testing Research Manager fax: +1 612 434-4318
mobile: +1 612 799-6942
e-mail:
shane(_at_)themacs(_dot_)com
OSF/1, Motif, UNIX and the "X" device are registered trademarks in
the US and other countries, and IT DialTone and The Open Group are
trademarks of The Open Group.