Re: Questions about RFCs 1494, 1495.

"Carl S. Gutekunst" <csg@hideji.worldtalk.com> Tue, 07 June 1994 00:14 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11368; 6 Jun 94 20:14 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11364; 6 Jun 94 20:14 EDT
Received: from survis.surfnet.nl by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27187; 6 Jun 94 20:14 EDT
Received: from relay3.UU.NET by survis.surfnet.nl with SMTP (PP) id <04328-0@survis.surfnet.nl>; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 02:02:26 +0200
Received: from uucp4.uu.net by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP (rama) id QQwtem22808; Mon, 6 Jun 1994 20:02:26 -0400
Received: from worldtlk.UUCP by uucp4.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL ; Mon, 6 Jun 1994 20:02:24 -0400
Received: from hideji.worldtalk.com by worldtalk.com with SMTP (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA20443; Mon, 6 Jun 1994 16:15:05 -0700
Received: by hideji.worldtalk.com (5.61/1.5) id AA20650; Mon, 6 Jun 94 16:19:41 -0700
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 16:19:41 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Carl S. Gutekunst" <csg@hideji.worldtalk.com>
Message-Id: <9406062319.AA20650@hideji.worldtalk.com>
To: Ned Freed <NED@sigurd.innosoft.com>
Cc: wg-msg@rare.nl, mime-mhs@surfnet.nl
Subject: Re: Questions about RFCs 1494, 1495.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 04 Jun 1994 10:43:03 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Id: <20648.770944779.1@hideji.worldtalk.com>

[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>