Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
amyzing@t... (Amelia A Lewis) writes: >*sigh* HTTP's authors had the bad taste to use the MIME-reserved >prefix "Content-" for headers in a protocol that is explicitly not >MIME-compliant, Erk. I've never really fathomed the details of the HTTP/MIME relationship - I should go back and do some more reading. It still seems like something that could use renegotiation, cleanup, or something similar. (I suspect an Internet-Draft could still propose extensions to HTTP's Content-Type without making the kind of broader assertions about use in other MIME contexts that felt natural to me for a few minutes there.) >and without defining the applicability of those >MIME-like headers to other protocols (which admittedly would be >difficult, since something like Content-Encoding isn't particularly >compatible with 7bit transmission). 7-bit transmission issues have been a real drag on the system for years now (IMHO), but it doesn't seem likely to go away. It seems like there should be a reasonable way around those problems that could still take advantage of Content-Encoding, but it wouldn't be much fun getting there. Once upon a time I hoped that BEEP and similar protocol efforts might give us a new and more extensible set of foundations for exchanging content, but it doesn't seem to have gone that way. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
