Possible bug in w3c.www.mime.MimeType.match(...), or am I misinterpreting?

Kyle Jamieson writes:
 > Hello,
 > 
 > This is from the package w3c.www.mime.*; file MimeType.java.  I'm a bit
 > confused by the rationale you use to match types here; it seems to me that
 > if the types match (*** below) then we shouldn't return -1 if consequently,
 > the subtypes don't (**** below) ; we should instead return
 > MATCH_SPECIFIC_TYPE.

Unfortunatelly I don't know of any standard to do mime type
matching. As you point out, Jigsaw matching consider (intentionnaly,
as far as I remember) that

"text/plain" doesn't match "text/html"
"text/*"     does match    "text/html"

I would rather stick to that interpretation since if you're interested
in text only, then you should probably match against
"text/*". Moreover changes to that match method would seriously affect
HTTP content negotiation (this is out of scope though)

Anselm.