On Saturday 17 November 2001 12:35 am, James Clark wrote:
> In what sense does DIME have a "MIME-base"? The only connection between
> DIME and MIME that I can see is that DIME allows you to specify the type of
> a particular member with a MIME media-type; I can't see anything wrong with
> that, especially since it gives you a choice of whether you label the type
> of a member with a MIME media-type or with an absolute URI.
My message wasn't very clear: I was just stating an aversion to MIME
packaging methods, not in the context of DIME (which might be seen as a
competitor).
> > Compared to XAR (or DZIP) I would say that DIME is more complex...
>
> I'm surprised you think that. ZIP provides a lot more functionality than
> DIME:
I meant from a deployment perspective. The tools for CAR already exist, and
the basic format is being used widely. It's mostly a matter of convention
than specification.
DIME does have some useful features in the context of SOAP-ish
things.
