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

"Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote:

> Given that WebDAV already makes significant use of XML, I would propose
> that using XML as the compound document format should be the default choice
> unless proven deficient for that purpose.

Hmm.  Does there already exist an XML DTD for compound documents?

> I realize that everyone has their favorite alternative to XML (and MIME
> certainly has its advantages), but it's rather late in the game to switch
> from XML to MIME, and depending on both XML *and* some other structured
> document format (such as MIME) is a complexity I'd prefer to avoid if at
> all possible.

We already depend on MIME at least a little bit, because we're based on HTTP.

My feeling is that, while XML is a good format for single documents, there is no
good reason to use it to duplicate the MIME mechanisms.  MIME is more widely
deployed, understood, and supported; and it already does what we want.  Plus, as a
(blech) political point, any working group that attempts to reimplement MIME is
going to face objections from the IETF community, asking why they didn't stick
with the protocol that was already there.  (And God help any working group that
reimplements MIME and omits an obscure feature in a subclause in RFC 31415926536.

> John did have one smiley at the end of his second message, so if the
> proposal to consider MIME was just a joke,

No, it just applied to the "I think"--an acknowledgment that I don't have as much
experience as the people I'm disputing.  :-)

|John Francis Stracke| |S/MIME & HTML OK|
|Xton, Mists, West   |NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed|
|My LAN, my opinions.| by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch|

[This message was sent using an evaluation copy of
IMail Server for Windows NT, a product of Ipswitch, Inc.]

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 1999 12:39:12 UTC