RE: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal)

At 02:54 PM 2000-05-19 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
>RFC 2387, multipart/related, provides for packaging, including
>URL-originated
>material, without requiring that you use relative URLs to keep the package
>together.
>
>That is, there is no need to use relative URLs for packaging, and this
>reduces the justification for retaining relative URLs as namespace
>identifiers, if motivated by packaging needs.
>

Agreed, not a necessity.  

[aside: packaging, not namespacing...]

Does MIME allows multiparts to be passed which refer among the several
parts by relative URLs?  I left this discussion before it was all done.
Does such use of relative URLs among the related parts serve at times as a
convenience in porting multiparts?

Al

>
>> >Do we agree this issue is packaging
>> >and is not namespacing?  Or do you think there is something that governs
>> >the interpretation of the names in a namespace that should be
>> categorically
>> >reserved to be expressed in a package wrapper or description?
>

Received on Friday, 19 May 2000 18:47:50 UTC