- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 15:46:03 +0200
- To: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, "public-appformats@w3.org" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On Oct 09, 2007, at 15:39, Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
> First, should there be a manifest file that lists the contents of
> the ZIP package? Let's assume the answer is yes. Then, you probably
> want to have an attribute such as 'type' that defines the MIME type
> of each particular file such as you describe below. My personal
> opinion is that it is always better to KISS, which translates into
> standards groups holding a ruthless sword that battles against
> feature creep of non-critical features, and in my mind manifest
> files are non-critical in many common workflows because the ZIP
> file itself has a directory and because the most common payload
> format, HTML, works on the Web very well without manifest files. My
> pragmatic proposal would be to define the file format for the
> manifest and define a standard location and name for the manifest
> within the package, but make it optional. In other words, manifests
> are not required but if present must conform to the spec. One more
> thing. If possible, to accelerate time to market and industry
> adopton, I would push the manifest file out of version 1.0, but
> have the 1.0 specification state reserve a future location for the
> manifest file.
I'm with Jon on this one; I think it's a useful feature in some
circumstances but I'm not convinced that it makes the 80/20 mark. I'd
be happier with a promise to push a v2.0 out quickly with that
feature included (and supporting content encoding as well as type).
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet."
-- Douglas Adams
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2007 13:46:23 UTC