RE: media types

As I understand the MIME types specification, this usage doesn't really
fit.  Isn't there some other  approach to adding the verbs?

For example, if I understand the PEP document, we should add a Protocol
and use header info. to get the behavior. It provides for querying for
support, and leaves content type alone. 

You would still want to have a way to directly address a version using a

Bernard Chester
Saros / FileNet

>From: 	Yaron Goland[SMTP:yarong@microsoft.com]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, November 13, 1996 11:07 AM
>To: 	Pat Allain; Bernard Chester; Eric Edeen; Bob Kennewick; Corprew
>Reed; Michael Seaman
>Subject: 	RE: media types
>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
>to parse requests. If a request is a copy I want to send it to program
>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,
>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
>>Gregory Woodhouse     gjw@wnetc.com
>>home page:            http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
>>resource page:        http://www.wnetc.com/resource/