- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 11:00:35 +1000
- To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, public-appformats@w3.org
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote: > One set of questions the current specification raises are similar to the > ones that were raised during discussions of registering a zip-based MIME > type: that the referenced ZIP specification itself is not a standard, > implementations vary, and that a simple reference to the PKWare "ZIP" > specification wasn't sufficient to insure interoperability: > > http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2007-September/001915.html Yes, you are correct, but as John said, we have tried to be as clear as possible what level of support is needed. If you have technical concerns about what is actually in the spec, then please send us feedback. We've done our best to define exactly what aspects of Zip implementer need to support. If something is missing or unclear, please let us know. The widget spec makes use of version 2.0 features (which are clearly defined in Zip 6.3) and one feature from 6.3 (Unicode file name support, which is a no-brainier to implement and support). FWIW, ISO was supposed to establish a working group to investigate standardizing a subset of Zip (not sure if that ever happened). PKWare, realizing that their spec is being used in standards, has also started being a bit more responsible and providing archive versions of the Zip note... though, last time I checked, they only have version 6.2 achieved: http://www.pkware.com/support/application-note-archives -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 01:01:16 UTC