🚀 go-pugleaf

I just attached an idraw postscript drawing to a mail message
using MIME conventions.

None of the existing MIME types seemed exactly right for
the drawing body part. The body part qualifies for

application/postscript

but then the receiver's user agent doesn't know it's
editable with idraw. I could use

application/x-idraw

but then the receiver's user agent couldn't use ghostscript
or lpr on it. Since it's encapsulated postscript, it should
also qualify for something like

image/x-epsf

so that you could copy and paste it into a FrameMaker document
or some such.

[Oh... and I think encapsulated postscript is standard enough
to warrant a MIME registered image/epsf type. There could
also be a parameter on application/postscript that says that
the data conforms to the document structuring conventions.]

The MIME type system doesn't have any inheritance features.
That is, there's no way to express the fact that application/x-idraw
is a subtype of application/postscript.

I could use the multipart/alternative feature and repeat the data
using all three content types, but that's a waste.

Is it reasonable to change MIME semantics to allow multiple
Content-Type headers and allow the ua to choose between
them? We could agree that, like the multipart/alternative feature,
the most basic type should be listed first, so that dumb
UA's will still work. In that case, I would tag the image
body part with all three headers:

Content-Type: application/postscript
Content-Type: image/x-epsf
Content-Type: application/x-idraw

%!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-1.2
%%Creator: idraw
...


Thoughts?

Dan