Subject: Re: URL type
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: 29 Apr 1997 18:50:16 -0000

> We want to use the MIME typing system as a generic datatyping/naming
> mechanism (outside of mail) in our system.

Why?

There are several well-known extensible type identification systems with
far less overhead than MIME.

Are you subject to the constraints that MIME was designed to satisfy?
Human readability, RFC 822 header field use, variable content encodings,
invulnerability to various forms of corruption?

---Dan
Let your users manage their own mailing lists. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Mani <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: John Mani <[email-masked]>
Subject: URL type
To: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked]
Content-MD5: Ie0k4RNezTf5GBmxqR6XfA==
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi all

	We want to use the MIME typing system as a generic datatyping/naming
mechanism (outside of mail) in our system. I know that RFC 2017 states that
'message/external-body; access-type=URL; URL=<foo>' is the recommended way
of typing URLs in MIME email. However this is probably too cumbersome and 
too mail-specific in our generic system.  What we want is a way to specify
URLs as real "standalone" types.
	Our choices are "text/x-url" and "application/x-url". What would be
the appropriate 'type' in this case ? (What's the guiding factor in deciding
which type - application or text ?) And finally, is there any interest in making
this a standard type ?

Comments ?

thanx
-john