Eizi,
The idea of using the MIME parameters is a new one and I don't think anyone has
thought through the details yet. In particular, I too am confused by the
introduction of yet another way to pass parameters. However, the need for a
mime type to characterize the CF-netCDF encoding extension to WCS is well
established.
For now, I agree with you that the important thing is to start the process of
deciding on and establishing what that should be. Your suggestion seems to be
a sound one to me. We can start with application/x-cf-netcdf and apply for
official registration of application/cf-netcdf. But, of course, the opinion of
the CF community is the deciding factor.
-- Ben
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Eizi TOYODA <toyoda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Ben,
Firstly, thank you very much for quoting.
However, to be honest, I don't get the point because of ambiguity:
Are the MIME parameters used for data format?
Or MIME parameters indicate the same thing what KVP is used for?
Either makes sense but I don't think "it is how most of the web
negotiates formats".
In HTTP a client indicates a list of acceptable media types,
and the server choses the best one according to priority (q parameter)
given by the client.
For example, a HTTP request shown below means "The best is HTML or
XHTML, XML is fine.
Give me anything if nothing above is available."
GET /path/progname.cgi?key=value&key2=value2 HTTP/1.1
Host: server.domain
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
That is negotiation.
Anyway, it is very good to know the proposal doesn't care whether the
MIME type is a registered with IANA.
Why don't we start with something like application/x-cf-netcdf or
parameterized counterpart?
