Re: Packaging on the Web specification

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:04 PM, ashok malhotra <
> ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeni:
>> A couple of quick comments:
>>
>> 1.  MHTML is a packaging format.  Why is it not suitable?  Need to say
>> something about it.
>>
>
> There's no standard for it, AFAICT.
>

I take that back. There seems to be a draft here:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557

I think the specified base URL resolution proves a challenge (which Jeni's
design doesn't have):

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557#section-5


>
>> 2. ZIP has lossless compression.  That's part of its popularity. Can we
>> do compression?
>>
>
> Yes, either at the transport layer over the entire package or over the
> individual item level. I think it'll be up to content-type aware tools to
> figure out which they're going to do by default early-on in the lifetime of
> the format.
>
>
>> 3. Would it be possible to create a streamable version of ZIP?
>>
>
> Perhaps, and this was discussed at length, but it has considerable
> downsides and still requires extra metadata that needs an additional
> standard (mimetype, e.g.).
>
>
>> Best, Ashok
>>
>>
>> On 4/6/2014 5:25 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I’ve worked up a proper spec for Packaging on the Web, speccing both a
>>> format (application/package) and a link relation (rel=package) and
>>> providing some detailed scenarios and examples.
>>>
>>> It’s at: http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/
>>>
>>> Feedback greatly appreciated. In particular, Yehuda, you said you’d
>>> review?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jeni
>>> --
>>> Jeni Tennison
>>> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>