Re: Questions about RFCs 1494, 1495.

["Carl S. Gutekunst" <[e-mail]>]

[I assume that <Internet-Drafts@CNRI> is not supposed to appear on replies.]

I still need to do a full read of the draft, but I'm please with what I've
read so far.  I do have two general questions from my first breeze through.

First, there seems to be some overlap between the new MIME content headers
and the oft-hinted but as yet undocumented (?) Content-Disposition header.
As you noted, the new headers are not restricted to FTBP mapping, and many
of them fill a huge void in the current content parameters.  There should be
only one solution.

Second, how do people feel about a large number of MIME headers with simple
arguments vs. a small number of headers with compound arguments?  This is,
something like this:

	Content-Type: application/ms-excel
	Content-Pathname: /home/csg/timecard.xlt
	Content-Permitted-Actions: Read
	Content-Last-Modification-Date: 6 Jun 1994 15:15:45 -0700
	Content-Creator: MSWD

vs:

	Content-Type: application/ms-excel
	Content-Disposition: attachment;
	    pathname=/home/csg/timecard.xlt;
	    permitted-actions=read;
	    last-mod-date=6 Jun 1994 15:15:45 -0700;
	    creator=MSWD

For a variety of reasons (some purely selfish) I prefer the second form.  But
I would expect other people would have other preferences.

<csg>