- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:29:36 -0400
- To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Marc de Graauw <marc@marcdegraauw.com>, mark@coactus.com, Marc de Graauw <mdegraau@xs4all.nl>, www-tag@w3.org
Jan Algermissen scripsit: > This could be rephrased to "what are the allowed variations between > two versions of a format if they are to remain the same media type?". > Has that ever been thought through? RFC 2045 says: It is also worth noting that version control for specific media types is not accomplished using the MIME-Version mechanism. In particular, some formats (such as application/postscript) have version numbering conventions that are internal to the media format. Where such conventions exist, MIME does nothing to supersede them. Where no such conventions exist, a MIME media type might use a "version" parameter in the content-type field if necessary. and likewise The purpose of the Content-Type field is to describe the data contained in the body fully enough that the receiving user agent can pick an appropriate agent or mechanism to present the data to the user, or otherwise deal with the data in an appropriate manner. The value in this field is called a media type. That's all the guidance we get. -- In politics, obedience and support John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> are the same thing. --Hannah Arendt http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 20:29:59 UTC