W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Packaging on the Web specification

From: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 21:47:08 +0200
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <9A6CE914-66C9-428F-918F-C43569720772@nordsc.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Hi Jeni,

while developing a parser for the packaging format, we stumbled over the renaming of multipart/package to application/package.

You give the explanation in the note in

http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/#streamable-package-format

In the note you write:

   "It is also unnecessary as the boundary can be ascertained from the content of the file."

The problem with this is that every existing multipart parser out there would have to be rewritten to do the lock-ahead. It seems pretty likely that this hinders adoption.

Example: Immediate reaction in our project has been: “Nah, let’s do our own multipart/package - I am not willing to rewrite the parser”.

Maybe you should consider adding multipart/package (with the required boundary parameter) back in.

Wouldn’t hurt I think.

Jan





On 06 Apr 2014, at 23:25, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> 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/
> 
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2014 19:47:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:25 UTC