Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: >> Hmm, reading that gives me the impression that parameters are defined >> when media types are registered, and aren't something we can add to >> suit our needs. > > I don't believe that is the case. > > I believe (according to the spec) you are free to create your own > Content Type parameters.
I disagree, you could break backwards compatibility if you start tacking on parameters that are not defined in the MIME-type (which is used in the Accept and Content-Type fields): "When sending data to older HTTP applications, implementations SHOULD only use media type parameters when they are required by that type/subtype definition."[1] I can't find any statement in the literature that says that you can add parameters that are not in the "Required" or "Optional" listing. Furthermore, RFC 2045 states: "Use of non-registered media types is discouraged." [1] "MIME implementations must ignore any parameters whose names they do not recognize."[2] I believe this means that web browsers should ignore any parameters whose names they do not recognize. That means if it isn't in the MIME-Type specification, it should be ignored by any implementation reading a field containing the MIME-Type. In short - if it isn't registered with the Mime-Type - you shouldn't be using it. -- manu [1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.7 [2] http://rfc.net/rfc2045.html#p10 _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
