ietf-xml-mime
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Finishing the XML-tagging discussion

2000-03-21 08:26:18
I really don't like having a separate label for this.  Anytime you
have two different labels for the same thing, you should be wary,
because it's inevitable that the two labels will get out of sync.
This has far greater potential for silly states than the concerns
that Ned expressed about a separate content-type parameter.

The problem is that the only way you can avoid having a separate tag in
feature expressions is to make the feature expression label the _only_ label
saying this. That's just the nature of the beast. Your parameter proposal
ends up needing a separate feature expression tag, just as the suffix
proposal does.

Also, all of the deployment arguments about a separate
content-type parameter are at least as applicable for
a separate content-feature header - if composers can't even
add a parameter to the content-type line, how likely is it that
they can reliably add a completely separate header?

And this is exactly why having only the feature expression label isn't
enough -- it doesn't solve the immediate problem for anyone.

                                Ned