- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 23:16:54 PDT
- To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, brian@organic.com, fielding@beach.w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Now - is the right place to hash it out on this list, create a new WG, or > to do something else? I personally would like to see the issue of representations sender's "potentially available document formats" and recipients "potentially acceptable document formats" handled in a group that includes implementors of MIME gateways and UAs. I think this is a focussed effort that should derive a syntax that is an outgrowth of the current media type specifications, but is able to specify ranges, match specifications (e.g., "version <= 89a"), extension parameters which do not occur in the MIME registration itself (e.g., color usage for images). In addition, it would be useful to standardize representations corresponding to what is currently coded in HTTP headers (relative rankings of media types and a way of specifying preferences) and mailcap files (e.g., dispatch table for formats and methods of handling them.)
Received on Sunday, 10 September 1995 23:19:21 UTC