Edgar Friendly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But for the first alternative, accessing CHK@xyz directly will not > > give you a proper MIME type, [...]
> If this is the case, fproxy (or whatever client you're using) needs to > be fixed. How is fproxy going to whip up the MIME type from thin air? > > Do we really need to work around these insertion mistakes? In a way > > it's /not/ the same data if it has a different MIME type. > But there's no reason to hold two copies of a large CHK if the only > thing that differs is the MIME type. Did I say there was? But deprecating metadata on CHKs is not the only solution to this common(?) mistake. I'd rather see insert clients give users more guidance about the MIME type. -- Robbe
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature
