RE: Progress update: negotiation

["McIntyre, Lloyd" <Lloyd.McIntyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 5:43 AM
> To: Hiroshi Tamura
> Cc: ietf-fax@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Progress update: negotiation
> 
> 
> Tamura-san,
> 
---snip---
> 
> 
> > >    o  Special considerations for defining composite document
> > >       characteristics (e.g. MRC) in Content-alternative 
> headers? (4)
> >
> >I do not know the issue well. Is it diffcult to express?
> 
> It could be difficult.  I think it is a theoretical issue 
> that takes us 
> into a level of considerable extra complexity with 
> zero-to-marginal utility.
> 
I am not sure what Graham had in mind for composite document
characteristics. I, however, assume that any provision would be defined in
Schema (RFC 2879). There could be value in a more explicit representation of
composite attributes.
---snip---

Lloyd