On 6/18/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Saturday, June 18, 2005, 7:16:50 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > > >>> My feeling was that we ruled out composite types in *local* content > >>> [...] > >>> > >> > >> I'm still looking, but my suspicion is that we never did rule them > >> out, and that this restriction crept in during some editorial > >> rephrasing. > > > <co-chair-mode>I disagree. Atom 0.3 had explicit built-in support > > for multipart, and there was strong (not rough) consensus support for > > retiring that and replacing it with the language in the current draft. > > <process-objection> > ... > But, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion or consensus > whatsoever for the prohibition of composite MIME types in content, > such as message/*, that was introduced in 08. > </process-objection> > > > Atom 0.3 multiparts forced a dubious and complex processing model on > everyone wanting to process Atom documents. This problem was solved by > their removal in the 03 to 07 drafts. > > The prohibition of composite types in the 08 draft (made many months > later) ....
Um, no. One of the drafts reworded the requirement in terms of the new MIME draft. Previously, the draft cited RFC2045's "discrete type". >From format-03: "Failing that, it MUST be a MIME media type [RFC2045] in which, to use the terminology of Section 5 of [RFC2045], the top level is a discrete type." We had to, you know, make an editorial change because the new MIME draft doesn't use the term "discrete type" anymore. Robert Sayre
