RE: structured documents [draft-hopmann-collection-props-00.txt]

multipart/related might be part of an implementation of compound documents
-- the way to represent its content when you want to transport the whole
compound document together -- but I doubt that it provides everything people
will want.  For example, normally you expect to be able to operate both on
the compound document as a whole and on each of its components individually.
So there would have to be some instructions to the server to give each
component a URL as well as the parent document.  There probably need to be
some standard poroperties on the compound document as a whole as well as
some on its components. etc.


Judith A. Slein
Xerox Corporation
800 Phillips Road 105/50C
Webster, NY 14580

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Stracke []
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 6:56 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: structured documents
> [draft-hopmann-collection-props-00.txt]
> Larry Masinter wrote:
> > If support for structured documents is needed for interoperable
> > clients, then it should only be "optional" in the sense of another
> > set of collective features which form yet another standard for
> > which 'conformance implies interoperability'.
> Do we really want to invent our own structured documents model?
> Rhetorical question: what's wrong with multipart/related?
> --
> /====================================================================\
> |John (Francis) Stracke    |My opinions are my own.|S/MIME supported |
> |Software Retrophrenologist|=========================================|
> |Netscape Comm. Corp.      | You! Out of the gene pool!              |
> |      |                                         |
> \====================================================================/

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 1999 10:53:28 UTC