Re: Re[2]: yet another way to indicate related MIME body parts

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Ned,

    ---- Included message:

    > But this misses the point of header-set.  The point is that you do NOT ha
		  ve
    > to repeat the image.  If I can (please) take the liberty of changing that
    > "tiff" to "gif", the idea behind header-set is to allow you to express yo
		  ur
    > example like:
    
    > ...
    
    Well, this is all news to me. There isn't anything even resembling such a g
		  oal
    in the header-set draft I have read. This appears to be a recent invention 

Yes.  Sorry about that.  The version of the spec listed in the internet-drafts
directory does not include this text.  Due to the closeness of the Houston
IETF, I could not post an update quickly enough.  It is certainly true that
I had not seen this particular benefit of header-set.  Amanda Walker suggested
it during the recent discussions for Mime content-types for the Mac.

		  that
    has been brought in to justify header-set now that it has failed demonstrat
		  e
    any other advantages.

This, of course, is not a helpful line of commentary.  It would appear
that the southern california flames are trying to trigger a brushfire
on this list.

Rather than a desperate effort to jockey for legitimacy, I tend to see this
admittedly-new use for header-set as fall-out which is typically representative
of good design.  (There might even be a smiley face here.)

In any event, I think that Steve Dorner has done a perfect job of summarizing
the benefits of header-set, so far, and it is only a matter of whether there
is any sort of consensus that those benefits are sufficient.  
    
    > 1. It eliminates the need to register a subtype of multipart for each
    > multipart thing.
    
    Let's see. For each header-set header, you have to register a type, right?
    Where's the huge overhead involved in registering a subtype of multipart at
		   the
    same time? I see no overhead here at all!
    
    I'm sorry, but this is nothing short of a complete red herring.

I don't understand such trivialization of concern for administrative
overhead.  We are already experiencing problems and questions about
Mime content-type administration; I would think that an effort to
greatly reduce one portion of consumption would meet with some warmth,
rather than such heat.
 
d/