On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 13:29 -0400, emf wrote: Pardon my top post, these are all good points Ethan, it's clear you've given it careful thought.
> Another approach would be something like: > <header><name>To</name> [EMAIL PROTECTED]</header> Yeah, that would work too, but it's a little awkward, I like your original idea better. > It also is problematic to have an arbitrary set of tags; I can imagine > someone using characters illegal for element names in an X-header. Good thinking, the legal character set differs between the two RFC's. > As I understand it, any user agent is free to throw on any X-header > their little heart desires, so that strikes me as a lack of a-priori > knowledge. No problem, silently ignore unknown fields. > > BTW, is the intention this XML document is going to have full blown > > parsing all the way through all the mime (sub)parts? > > I was angling for something along those lines, yes. Hmm... then you'll have to introduce the same structure for handling extended mime types etc., consistency in structural representation is probably a good thing. Since you'll going to have to deal with unknown names I think I would prefer both well known names and unknown extended names have identical document structure rather than special casing the extended names in an independent way. Special casing during a document traversal based on context introduces unnecessary pain. -- John Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Red Hat Inc. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
