Re: AtomPub Multipart Open Issues

["Sylvain Hellegouarch" <sh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
>>
>> I have to agree with Bill. "related" is only one use of the multipart
>> subtypes. Joe, rather than post-options="multipart", why not using
>> multipart="related|form-data|alternative|...".
>
> Except that not all multipart types don't have the notion of a "root
> part":
>  - multipart/form-data is likely to be used with parts such as
> "title", "summary", "summary-type", "content", "content-type",
> "author", etc. and even if an Atom Entry would be sent, there's no
> notion of a "root part"
>  - how would you use multipart/alternative? And you cannot reference
> one "alternative" from another using a cid: URI, it would be a
> multipart/related (eventually included as one of the "alternative"
> parts).

I don't quite see how that precludes the use of the
multipart="related|form-data|alternative|..." style of attribute. Your
point is more about why and how AtomPub services should consider choosing
and handling one of the subtype.

>
>> That convention would at least allow for compatibility with future
>> extensions that would like to deal with other MIME subtypes.
>> Interestingly
>> your draft could be duplicated almost as-is to support "mixed" and
>> "alternative".
>
> I'm not so sure... (see above)

Right. It wouldn't be a word-by-word copy ;) but the skeleton would be
more or less the same.

>
>
> @Joe: what's the problem with advertising
> <app:accept>multipart/related;type="application/atom+xml;type=entry"</app:accept>?
>

I was wondering about that too. But then again multipart/related would
look sufficient to me, wouldn't it?

- Sylvain

-- 
Sylvain Hellegouarch
http://www.defuze.org