Re: [xml-dev] Packaging (was Re: [xml-dev] Interoperability)

[Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>]

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.