W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1996

RE: media types

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:07:10 -0800
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-44-MSG-961113190710Z-3972@INET-05-IMC.itg.microsoft.com>
To: "'Gregory J. Woodhouse'" <gjw@wnetc.com>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
This has been suggested by a number of people and I am starting to like
it. The only real argument against it is that it makes it more difficult
to parse requests. If a request is a copy I want to send it to program A
but if it is a delete I want to send it to program B. However as I
expect we will agree on a compromise to introduce new method names but
allow for the use of post and depend on the application/webdav mime
type, I think we can make everyone equally unhappy. Which, of course, is
the definition of compromise. =)
			Yaron

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Gregory J. Woodhouse [SMTP:gjw@wnetc.com]
>Sent:	Tuesday, November 12, 1996 10:36 PM
>To:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>Subject:	media types
>
>I haven't said anything about this because I've been relecutant to
>criticize a proposal on aesthetic grounds. but the idea of using separate
>media types for each action really bothers me. Why don't we introduce a
>single media type application/webdav and then use a parameter for the
>specific action, as in
>
>application/webdav;action=delete
>
>---
>Gregory Woodhouse     gjw@wnetc.com
>home page:            http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
>resource page:        http://www.wnetc.com/resource/
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 1996 14:07:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:41 GMT