Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: > I don't think we are disagreeing. > > You are saying that it says we SHOULD NOT use them. And I'm not arguing > that. > > But "SHOULD NOT" is NOT the same a "MUST NOT".
Agreed. Although, I don't think I made myself clear in the last post to this thread. The following I see as a MUST NOT: "MIME implementations must ignore any parameters whose names they do not recognize." In other words, "Web browsers MUST NOT process parameters whose names they do not recognize". Parameter recognition is based on MIME-type, isn't it? Or am I missing something? > And therefore, despite the encouragement (from the spec) to NOT make > up your own Content Type parameters, you still could. And if you did, > you would still be complying with the spec. Isn't this a slippery slope? Remember, we're not just talking about one MIME-type here, we're talking about possibly adding 2-5 parameters for all of these MIME-types: audio/basic audio/mp4 audio/mpeg audio/mpeg4-generic audio/ac3 video/DV video/H264 video/mp4 video/mpeg video/quicktime video/vc1 image/gif image/jpeg image/tiff image/png --------------------------------------------------------------------- Just to set up an alternative for discussion purposes. If we wanted to specify the following for a file (WARNING: Strawman ahead): type, audio-codec, audio-codec-sample-rate, video-codec-sample-rate, video-codec-bitrate, size-in-octets, URL We could then mark-up the following text in a uF: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We just went rock climbing at The Gorge in West Virginia. Here are two downloadable files of us doing Angels Arete: The Gorge - DV (54MB, PCM 48Khz audio, HD-VCR/1125-60 video) The Gorge - MPEG (22MB, MP3 192Kbps audio, MPEG-2 video) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We could create a hFile uF like so: <div class="hFile"> <a type="video/DV" href="/angels_arete.dv">The Gorge - DV</a> (<abbr class="size-in-octets" title="56623104">54MB</abbr>, <span class="audio-codec">PCM</span> <abbr class="audio-codec-sample-rate">48Khz</span> audio, <span class="video-codec">HD-VCR/1125-60</span> video) </div> <div class="hFile"> <a type="video/mpeg" href="/angels_arete.mpg">The Gorge - MPEG</a> (<abbr class="size-in-octets" title="23068672">22MB</abbr>, <span class="audio-codec">PCM</span> <abbr class="audio-codec-sample-rate">192Kbps</span> audio, <span class="video-codec">MPEG-2</span> video) </div> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The argument for the first alternative, adding parameters to pre-existing MIME-Types, seems a bit shaky. The second alternative, adding classes, is based on a widely accepted standard. Which one is the better solution for describing file formats? -- manu -- Manu Sporny President/CEO Digital Bazaar, Inc. http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/ _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
