Subject: @type in <content> vs <link>

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:08:47 +1000

the 'type' attribute as described in and 3.1.1 and 3.4.2 are not harmonious
and could lead to confusion.

> 3.1.1  "type" Attribute
> 
>  Content constructs MAY have a "type" attribute, whose value indicates
>  the media type of the content.  When present, this attribute's value
>  MUST be a media type [RFC2045].  If this attribute is not present,
>  processors MUST behave as if it were present with a value of "text/
>  plain".

and ...

> 3.4.2  "type" Attribute
> 
>  The "type" attribute indicates an advisory media type; it MAY be used
>  as a hint to determine the type of the representation which should be
>  returned when the URI in the href attribute is dereferenced.  Note
>  that the type attribute does not override the actual media type
>  returned with the representation.
> 
>  Link constructs MUST have a type attribute, whose value MUST be a
>  media type [RFC2045].
> 

3.1.1 is silent on the advisory nature of @type in content, while 3.4.2
explains a lot (including precedence)

should @type be optional in both cases, and if optional should it also not
default to some value (eg. text/plain), instead defaulting to
"not-specified", since it is also only advisory?

e.