Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Saturday 17 November 2001 12:35 am, James Clark wrote: > In what sense does DIME have a "MIME-base"? The only connection between > DIME and MIME that I can see is that DIME allows you to specify the type of > a particular member with a MIME media-type; I can't see anything wrong with > that, especially since it gives you a choice of whether you label the type > of a member with a MIME media-type or with an absolute URI. My message wasn't very clear: I was just stating an aversion to MIME packaging methods, not in the context of DIME (which might be seen as a competitor). > > Compared to XAR (or DZIP) I would say that DIME is more complex... > > I'm surprised you think that. ZIP provides a lot more functionality than > DIME: I meant from a deployment perspective. The tools for CAR already exist, and the basic format is being used widely. It's mostly a matter of convention than specification. DIME does have some useful features in the context of SOAP-ish things.
|
