[closed] Re: c:multipart content-type attribute vs. header

Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote:
>> 2010/1/11 Alex Milowski wrote:
[...]
>>  I am not sure a default value is really relevant here.  That
>> saves the user of typing a few characters, but it does not sound
>> like a "real" default value (what people really want most of the
>> time).  Why not making c:multipart/@content-type required
>> instead, consistently with c:body/@content-type?
>
> That's probably quite true.  Maybe that would be the
> right thing to do.

Per the 14 January 2010 minutes, content-type is now required on c:multipart.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | In science, "fact" can only mean
http://nwalsh.com/            | "confirmed to such a degree that it
                              | would be perverse to withhold
                              | provisional assent." I suppose that
                              | apples might start to rise tomorrow,
                              | but the possibility does not merit
                              | equal time in physics
                              | classrooms.--Stephen J. Gould