Re: FORM ENCTYPE=multipart/www-form (was: Toward closure on HTML)

Jay C. Weber ([email protected])
Wed, 6 Apr 94 10:35:04 PDT

> From: Dave Raggett <[email protected]>
>
> My thoughts on a multipart/related format for forms are to start with
> an SGML based encoding for most fields and to use additional parts
> as needed for data which doesn't fit neatly into the SGML scheme, e.g.
> audio, pen input (as JOT), and file data. This way you normally just
> see one part.
>
> The next step is to define the SGML DTD for form contents and to
> specify the naming scheme for referencing data in other parts.
> The SGML ID notation springs to mind here.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that if someone wants to invent another
ENCTYPE, say text/sgml-www-form, then you can just use that as the
catch-all content-type instead of application/www-form-url-encoded.

But I guess the strong version of your thoughts is to require this new
SGML-based simple form value type, and bury www-form-url-encoded in
history.

I'm sure there are others who'll say "sure that would have been more
elegant, but why invent a new simple form format at this point?"

For my part, I like having the MIME encapsulation support either, then
we'll see what happens when the developers have at it.

Jay