- From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:54:01 -0500
- To: "'francis@appoint.net'" <francis@appoint.net>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
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. --Judy Judith A. Slein Xerox Corporation jslein@crt.xerox.com (716)422-5169 800 Phillips Road 105/50C Webster, NY 14580 > -----Original Message----- > From: John Stracke [mailto:francis@netscape.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 6:56 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > 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! | > |francis@netscape.com | | > \====================================================================/ > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 1999 10:53:28 UTC