• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:23:52 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3F269068.5040200@e...>

robin.berjon@e... (Robin Berjon) writes:
>> I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for - and Len's reply
>> makes me even less certain - but Content-Type header fields
>> definitely take parameters:
>
>Content-Type, yes, Content-Encoding/Accept-Encoding (aka content 
>codings), no:
>
>http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2068/rfc2068

Thanks - that makes it clear.  Seems like an odd omission.  

Has anyone taken this particular challenge up with the IETF?  

(I worry that other people will read it the way I did and start hacking
encoding parameters into Content-Type rather than use Content-Encoding.
Open spaces seem to invite traffic when other spaces are closed.)



-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>

• References:
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread