At 02:54 PM 2000-05-19 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: >RFC 2387, multipart/related, provides for packaging, including >URL-originated >material, without requiring that you use relative URLs to keep the package >together. > >That is, there is no need to use relative URLs for packaging, and this >reduces the justification for retaining relative URLs as namespace >identifiers, if motivated by packaging needs. > Agreed, not a necessity. [aside: packaging, not namespacing...] Does MIME allows multiparts to be passed which refer among the several parts by relative URLs? I left this discussion before it was all done. Does such use of relative URLs among the related parts serve at times as a convenience in porting multiparts? Al > >> >Do we agree this issue is packaging >> >and is not namespacing? Or do you think there is something that governs >> >the interpretation of the names in a namespace that should be >> categorically >> >reserved to be expressed in a package wrapper or description? >Received on Friday, 19 May 2000 18:47:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:22 GMT