W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > January 2010

Re: c:multipart content-type attribute vs. header

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:22:07 -0800
Message-ID: <28d56ece1001111022v147f4883vcfebfb4eb2f1583c@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote:
> 2010/1/11 Alex Milowski wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>> You should be able to set the content type to whatever
>> multipart/* content type you request.  The most common would be
>> multipart/mixed and multipart/related but there are others [1].
>
>  In the context of HTTP requests (op. to email messages) I think
> multipart/form-data is quite regular too.
>
>> If a value of "multipart/related" is assumed, that should only
>> be in the case where there is no content type header
>> value--either from a c:header element as in above or by the
>> actual content-type attribute on c:multipart.
>
>  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.

-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 18:22:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 January 2010 18:22:40 GMT