- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: 17 Jan 2002 19:04:38 -0500
- To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, mura034@attglobal.net
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 17:54, Keith Moore wrote: > > It's not MIME's fault that it was designed in an era when no one > > expected the possibility of creating such labelled content. However, > > such content is useful, and MIME's inability to handle such things > > definitely feels like a limitation from the perspective of people who > > like such things. > > I don't see an inability of MIME to handle labelled content, I see > XML's deliberate decision to use a means of content-labelling which > was incompatible with MIME, while still expecting to use MIME > framing to convey XML from one place to another. How would you have proposed that XML's developers create a MIME-compliant form of content labelling? Or would you simply have banned the notion of mixing different vocabularies into a single document? > MIME does have its limitations Anything with only two levels is pretty well guaranteed to run into a need for three or more. MIME is a legacy technology. It works well for what it did and does. That doesn't mean it'll work well going forward. (And the same may well happen to XML over a similar period of time.) > On the other hand, it might be worth the trouble to define a > different transmission format for the sole purpose of shipping > XML around. It's not as if either SMTP or HTTP is ideal for > this purpose either. No, they're not very efficient. I'm not convinced however, that sending XML over separate pipes is particularly sensible either. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 18:00:59 UTC