NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Years ago, I was leading a project called Pandora in which MIME type parameter was extensively used to negotiate data types. My quick thoughts: * MIME type parameter sounds clean, but it's hard to implement MIME dispatcher using parameter. Most dispatcher (such as apache, MS Windows shell) just ignores MIME type parameter. So, different types (not parameter) need to be created if different handler applications are to be invoked. * I think netcdf files with different conventions are better handled with different applications if dispatcher-handler approach is used. i.e. Netcdf is too generic vehicle of data like XML. Rather, I suggest using XHTML's approach. RFC3236 decides to use "application/xhtml+xml" media type. Please read Appendix A of RFC3023 http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt. How do you think about using "application/cf+netcdf" ? Perhaps this would be better discussed in CF mailing list. -- Eiji TOYODA On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:52 PM, John Caron <caron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(Sorry last message got munged) Generally, I think using mime type to specify encoding format is a good idea. The netcdf subset service uses "application/x-netcdf" for the Content-Type HTTP header, when returning netcdf files. When requesting format types, we use "accept=application/x-netcdf" but also allow "accept=netcdf", in order to make human typing of the URLs as easy as possible. I dont think we need to register "application/x-netcdf". If we do want to, it would have to be "application/netcdf" since types or subtypes that begin with "x-" are nonstandard -- they cannot be registered with IANA. Im less sure about the profile parameter. I like the idea of clarifying that these are cf files. But Im not sure if there are other implications. Ben Domenico wrote:Hi, Many of you may be aware, that, in the WCS Standards Working Group, a suggestion has arisen to: Use Parameterized MIME Types to transmit format request options (parameter values). It is flexible, it is simple, and it is how most of the web negotiates formats. As I understand it, this would mean that we would move in the direction of having netCDF or CF-netCDF formally registered with IANA as a MIME type. As it is now, we could continue with the MIME type that is used in places but not recognized application/x-netcdf and apply to have that registered formally. Then we could use a profile parameter to specify cf-netcdf3. This would look like application/x-netcdf;profile=cf-netcdf3 That might be the cleanest approach for the moment and would probably require minimal consideration from the CF conventions community since we would not be applying for formal registration of CF as part of a MIME type. MIME type issues are a bit troubling for us because it's an area most of us have only been involved in peripherally in the past. Of course there are many other possible approaches for MIME types we could pursue, but, if we are going to pursue this at all, this seems to be the most straightforward. Any thoughts on this? Is it a good idea in general. Are there other approaches we should consider?
galeon archives: