Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt

Hello Arnt,

As I pointed out in a separate message, providing type information
with an URI is a bad idea because it inhibits future developments.

Regards,    Martin.


At 19:25 04/10/27, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
 >Arnt Gulbrandsen writes:
 >> (That doesn't necessarily mean that the retrieved object must have a 
certain content-type. I can imagine other ways to achieve the same end.)
 >
 >That was stupid of me. Concrete suggestions beat handwaving. Sorry.
 >
 >My preferred approach would be to give archived-at the same parameter 
list that MIME fields have, and define a "content-type=x/y" parameter 
naming a type expected to be available. For a list that provides archives 
in two forms and uses fancy HTTP to provide the right one, the field could 
be like this:
 >
 >Archived-At: ...; content-type=message/rfc822, content-type=text/html
 >
 >For a less fancy archive providing both forms under separate URLs, two 
Archived-At fields could be used:
 >
 >Archived-At: ...; content-type=message/rfc822
 >Archived-At: ...; content-type=text/html
 >
 >For today's usual sort of archive, the expected content-type would be 
text/html by default:
 >
 >Archived-At: ...
 >
 >Arnt
 >