Exchange (lailed@exchange.microsoft.com)
Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:33:35 -0700
I agree with the approach of separating the audio/wav registration from the
definition of WAV for use in VPIM.
I also feel that the content-features header would provide a more
appropriate mechanism for indicating the codec used than a parameter on the
content-type header.
Graham, a while back did you define feature expressions for an audio
content-features profile that included codec?
Laile
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@Dial.pipex.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 3:39 AM
To: Laile Di Silvestro (Exchange)
Cc: VPIM discussion list; vpim@lists.neystadt.org; ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: RE: [VPIM] draft-ema-vpim-wav-00.txt
[....]
In which case, I would suggest that it might be helpful to separate the
audio/wav MIME registration (with reference to the Microsoft documentation)
from the definition of WAVE as used by VPIM (e.g. along the lines of RFC
2301/RFC 2302 for Internet fax).
(Of course, other applications may also choose to reference the "VPIM"
version of WAVE, but that's another story.)
>Earlier versions of the VPIM v3 internet draft defined a codec parameter
>that specified the codec used for the WAV encapsulated audio.
[....]
I have no strong view on this. A new feature registration in the CONNEG
framework, along with the proposal
<draft-ietf-conneg-content-features-01.txt>, could provide a similar
facility.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Mar 19 2002 - 01:04:15 IDT