- From: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:32:03 -0700
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>, Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 21:06 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf >> >With all due respect to Bert Bos, I hope that >> >you will instead reconsider using MIME. For >> >most practical purposes, you can regard MIME >> >format as a compressible "directory archive" >> >so most reasons you might have for choosing a >> >file archive format are also reasons for choosing >> >MIME. > >> Many successful file archive formats do not choose MIME e.g. JAR files, which >> bind together binary files together with one or more manifests and XML descriptors. > > Yes (and, I'm aware of that). > I'm not aware of any use cases where someone does use MIME as a mechanism for one part marking up another, except perhaps in the case of MHT (which I don't think is a good analogy here, because the relationship is inverted). Can you point to other precedents for your approach? If you have done so already and I've forgotten, I apologize. I think it's much conceptually clearer to fetch a single resource (the bundle of data + metadata) through HTTP than it is to fetch a "multipart MIME document", and we do have a precedent with ZIP and JAR (and I'm sure that there are a couple others that I'm forgetting). -- Dirk
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 02:32:45 UTC