W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2010

RE: mime-web-info 6.1 feedback

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:31:38 -0800
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D04FAFCF353@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've rewritten this

<section title="Application info">
<t>Problem: Most often, the original conception of MIME for email "attachments"
    was that each content body was really a separate communication; however
    some Internet Media Types do not have that characteristic. </t>
     <t>Could the 'applications that use this type' section to be
     clearer about whether the media type is intended to be 
     piece of self-contained content (it is sensible to store the
     MIME data as a file and later launch a separate application to
     view or interact with it) or whether it is (always, most often,
     not really appropriate) to do so, and instead this content
     is intended or embedding or processing as a part of a larger
     context or application.  Of course there may be situations where
     either holds with the same media type.

I'm not sure that was the problem I had in mind, but at least it's
one reason for being clearer. Sometimes MIME types really work
stand-alone, sometimes they really are meant to be part of something
else, and aren't really stand-alone. Maybe I still don't have my
finger on the "problem"?


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric J. Bowman [mailto:eric@bisonsystems.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 7:11 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: www-tag@w3.org; Adam Barth
Subject: Re: mime-web-info 6.1 feedback

Larry Masinter wrote:
> I've read the email below over several times, and I'm not sure
> whether or not you want a change to the current document.
> I guess I'm a little slow here, can you help out?
> Which wording do you want a rewrite of? Any suggestions of
> what it should say instead?

My concern regards the wording, "should always be downloaded" as it
implies that a media type definition is capable of dictating such
behavior to user-agents.  My suggested wording would be, "is typically
downloaded."  While I support the notion of clarifying 'applications
that use this type,' such clarification needs to avoid confusing folks
as to the scope and purpose of media types.

You posit the question, "Is there a separate issue for 'auto-play on
download' vs. 'ask user for permission'?"  My answer is that this
issue lies outside the scope of what a media type should define, because
such behavior is the product of application context (user action), not
data type (sender intent).

I could probably be more helpful with wording, if the "Problem" in
5.1.4 were fleshed out -- I'm not sure what the goal is, only what it
shouldn't be (suggesting sender intent trumps user action).  But, I
can't tell if that's what you're actually suggesting, that's just the
impression I'm getting.

Received on Tuesday, 28 December 2010 06:32:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:08 UTC