[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
amyzing@talsever.com (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
|
