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

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 UTC