On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 15:04, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > 1019300992.1393.7.camel@roque:">news:1019300992.1393.7.camel@roque: > > >> http://www.atlas-games.com/pdf_storage/armtemplate.awt > is > >> served as 'text/plain'. > > > > That is more correct than Application/Octet-Stream. > > No, 'text/plain' should *never* be used on anything which is > supposed to be parsed by machines/programs. This has been discussed > at length on various MIME-related mailing lists.
Maybe, but application/octet-stream is a far worse mime than text/plain. text/plain is a superset of text/xml, which in turn is a superset of text/x-abiword, for instance. If you provide (in lack of another) text/plain as the mime type, at least the document is viewable in a very straightforward way with your pager on your text console email client, or even GUI. If there is something better than text/plain to describe some xml format, great. But the bare minimum is text/plain, then text/xml. NEVER application/octet-stream (a java .class would fit nicely here, for instance). Hugs, rms -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi + So let's do it...?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
