Re: multipart posts

[James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, let me ask you this: Keeping in mind that the intent here is not
really to identify what kind of documents I can transfer but to
communicate how the server actually intends to process those so a client
knows what to reasonably expect, how would I use the multipart/related
media type to communicate the three different behaviors I alluded to in
my note:

  1. Accepting multipart/related as a regular media resource
  2. Accepting multipart/related as a compound post containing a media
     resource and it's media link entry
  3. Accepting multipart/related for some other purpose


- James

Bill de hOra wrote:
> 
> James M Snell wrote:
> 
>> Now suppose that someone else comes up with some slightly different
>> multipart processing behavior.  Using <accept> only, there would be
>> absolutely no way of differentiating the different cases. 
> 
> As I see it, operationally this is the same as saying that media types
> cannot express the intent of a multipart upload, but URLs could.
> 
> The feature approach strikes me as cross between an XML PI and
> SOAPAction. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I don't
> understand what it is about media types that can't express the same
> intent, given we're still (essentially) doing document transfer.
> 
> cheers
> Bill
> 
>