Collection of Internet/Collection of Internet.iso/infosrvr/doc/www_talk.arc/[e-mail] _Mon Jun 8 02:29:05 1992.msg

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-30 | 2KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from dxmint.cern.ch by  nxoc01.cern.ch  (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA10171; Mon, 8 Jun 92 02:29:05 MET DST
Received: by dxmint.cern.ch (dxcern) (5.57/3.14)
    id AA03499; Mon, 8 Jun 92 02:27:12 +0200
Received: by nigel.msen.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.5)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sun, 7 Jun 92 20:26 WET DST
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] (Jean Francois Groff)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: HTML is not SMGL
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 08 Jun 92 01:01:02.
             <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 92 20:26:48 EDT
From: Edward Vielmetti <[e-mail]>

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