- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:42:39 -0500
- To: francis@appoint.net
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: John Stracke <francis@appoint.net> "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? XML provides the mechanisms for specifying "immediate" data and references to other resources. A DTD just specifies a particular type of compound document (or at least, specifies its syntax). Providing a MIME namespace and DTD's to support interoperability between MIME and XML would be fine, but that's very different from using MIME as the structured document format for WebDAV. > I realize that emveryone 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. Can you be more specific? I don't remember ever feeling the need to read any MIME spec to understand some part of WebDAV (and I read a *large* number of specs during my recusive descent into WebDAV-world :-). 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. A good reason would be if XML already provides the required MIME functionality, and is already an explicit and widely used component of WebDAV, then the spec is needlessly complicated by introducing MIME. MIME is more widely deployed, understood, and supported; and it already does what we want. There are many things that are widely deployed, understood, and supported than XML (and certainly than WebDAV), but selecting an additional redundant format just because it is widely deployed is a major step against interoperability. 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. We are sticking with a protocol that was already there ... it's just that it is XML, and not MIME. So I need to see a convincing argument that MIME provides essential functionality not already provided by XML. To emphasize, I'm not saying there is no such argument that could be made -- it's just that I haven't seen it, and I subscribe strongly to the "keep it out of the spec until proven necessary" philosophy. (And God help any working group that reimplements MIME and omits an obscure feature in a subclause in RFC 31415926536. :-) Which illustrates why I would resist seeing MIME as a required part of the WebDAV spec (:-). Cheers, Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 1999 13:43:38 UTC