Subject: Re: HTML is not SMGL
From: Edward Vielmetti <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] (Jean Francois Groff)
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 92 20:26:48 EDT

The UDI vs. MIME argument is a non-arguement.  MIME is sufficiently
flexible that if you construct an appropriate Content-type and define
its semantics appropriately it will accept UDI's and work accordingly.
"Simple matter of programming" :).

Explicit "attribute=value" tags are more flexible than the W3 approach
to turn the entire document ID into a big long string.  I guess it 
depends on whether you believe you are dealing with a big database
or a big file system.  Both approaches have their place.  Again as
a simplified case you have "udi=//host:port/path" as a MIME identifier
and all is well.

I expect that MIME will be available in many e-mail products over the next
3-5 years.  Since the only application that has anywhere near universal
appeal on the net is e-mail, it strikes me as only appropriate that 
hypertext systems try to get as much leverage from mail as they possibly
can.

--Ed