Collection of Internet/Collection of Internet.iso/infosrvr/doc/www_talk.arc/[e-mail] _Thu Jun 11 18:21:47 1992.msg

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-30 | 13KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from dxmint.cern.ch by  nxoc01.cern.ch  (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA20470; Thu, 11 Jun 92 18:21:47 MET DST
Received: by dxmint.cern.ch (dxcern) (5.57/3.14)
    id AA16880; Thu, 11 Jun 92 18:21:50 +0200
Received: by zippy.lcs.mit.edu
    id AA03819; Thu, 11 Jun 92 12:22:56 -0400
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 12:22:56 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Tim Berners-Lee)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: MIME, SGML, UDIs, HTML and W3
Cc: [e-mail]


I have printed off the recent discussion on the new
HTTP, HTML and MIMe and UDIs and done what I can
to disentangle it all in my mind.  I will reply
in one message, becase many of the points are linked.
I know this should be hypertext, with references but
(a) I am away from home and (b) we don't yet have a
universal mail/news archive server running to link to.

    HTTP and HTML

First of all, Jean-Francois <[e-mail]>
points out very properly that the enhaced HTTP
protocol and the enhanced HTML spec are quite
separate things, and should be specified separatedly.
I agree wholeheartdly about all this, and
I aplogize for muddling the levels up till now.

(As a small aside, I would point out that wheras a
HTERR file is not very useful, a HTFWD file IS.
It is like a hypertex soft link. But I am happy to
leave that as a separate type of file. It should
certainly get a different extension so that it gets a
different icon)

        HTTP: SGML vs ASN/1

Let's look at the HTTP protocol first. Carl <[e-mail]>
is mapping out  the requirements for this, and assuming that SGML
would be a reasonable representation for it in practice.
And so it is.  When the requirements are clear,
it would certainly be interesting to look at mapping them
onto a z39.50 - style ASN/1 implementation. This would
be useful for two reasons. First, the comparison would
point out to us things in z39.50 which we might not have thought of
which would b useful for HTTP. Second, the comparison might give
a nice short or at least well-defined things which the WAIS
guys might like to take into account in the next version
of their protocol.  (I demod W3 to Brewster who hadn't
seen it before live, and was very keen that WAIS and W3
should merge, changing the WAIS protocol if necessary.

There is no reason why we shouldn't try both protocols.
If they map well onto each other, its just a question
of having two separate prasers at the low level, building
the same internal structures.

When we're talking about an SGML representation,
and describe a file to come later down the link,
I don't think we have to use the NOTATION= attribute with a notation
type, because we won't in fact be talking about
the notation of an SGML element.
The format in this case is not something which the SGML
parse is aware of.

I must admit I was disappointed to learn that SGML
didn't allow for any way of including 8 bit data. Thanks Eric
<[e-mail]> for your explanations.


    MIME and SGML

Dan <[e-mail]> rightly points out
the relevance of the coming MIME standards. There
are several things which we must separate here, though:

   1. The MIME classification of data formats
   2. The MIME format for multi-part messages
   3. The MIME format for rich text.
   4. The MIME formal for external document addresses (MIME UDIs)

1. MIME classification of data formats

    We must do the same disentangling job which JF did
    on HTML to MIME.

    First of all, the MIME job of classifying data formats
    is a useful job which is ideally done by just one
    bunch of people. Ther has been some suggestion that
    the MIME classifications are not well enough defined,
    but they seem to be the best effort yet and one can only
    assume they will eveolve in the right direction. So I'd
    back the use of these for W3.


2. The MIME format for multi-part messages

    This is necessary for sending a multi-part
    document over a mail link.  We have to ask ourselves
    whether it is reasonable to use over a binary link.
    Personally, my initial impression is that the MIME
    stuff, using as it does terminators such as
    --xxx-- separated by blank lines, looks more horrible
    to work with in this respect than SGML! Still we have
    the problem of restrictions on the content:
    Must not contain delimiters, limited 7 bit character set,
    line orientation, in fact all the things which email
    carries as a restriction.  This is really taking on board
    a legacy of all the mail which has evolved over the years.
    Do we need that for our new ultra-fast hypertext access
    protocol?

    [Compare the MIME format with the rather cleaner NeXT
    Mail format which is as far as I understand simply
    a uuencoded compressed tar file of all the bits, where
    uuencoding is designed as an optimal way of getting over
    mail transport restrictions, compress does what it says
    and tar is a multipart wrapper designed for that only. Not
    standard outside unix, perhaps, but cleaner in that the
    mail formatting is done at the last minute and doesn't
    affect the other operations]

    If course, with HTTP2, multipart/alternative shouldn't
    be needed.

  Multipart for hypetext?

    Now, Dan not only suggests the use of this for
    multipart messages, but also suggests that a hypetext
    document shoudl necessarily contain many parts,
    one on SGML and one for each link as a MIME external document.
    This means that an SGML hypertext document can never stand
    on its own! An SGML parser will always need to have
    a MIME parser sitting just outside.  I don't like
    this: I feel we have to separate these two things.

    Suppose that an SGML document does want to
    be sent in a MIME message and does want to
    refer to other parts of that MIME message. In that case,
    it seems reasonable to have a format for that.
    However, when an SGML document is seen by itself, and
    refers to a news message for example, then there is
    no resaon for it not to be able to contain a
    complete reference within itself.

    When SGML documents include other files, then
    the SYSTEM value is typically a file name.
    It is a reeference to something outside. The
    precedent is set that SGML documents are allowed
    to refer to things outside.

    I think part of you objection, Dan is based on
    a dislike of the UDI syntax -- which I'll come to later.

3. The MIME format for rich text.

    Here, I am not so impressed.  Basically, the MIME
    people are at the same level that we were before we started
    this cleanup, that they have SGML-LIKE stuff which isn't SGML.
    As its not difficult to make it SGML, they should do that.
    Comparing MIME's rich text and HTML, I see that
    we lack the characetr formatting attributes BOLD and ITALIC
    but on the other hand I feel that our treatment of
    logical heading levels and other structures is much more powerful
    and has turned out to provide more flexible formatting
    on different platforms than explicit semi-references
    to font sizes.  This is born out by all the systems which
    use named styles in preference to explicit formatting,
    LaTeX or other macros instead of TeX, etc etc.

    So technically, HTML has some things to give MIME's rich
    text. Are the MIME people still open to additions?
    If not, I would suggest we add BOLD and ITALIC (or
    two emphasis styles for characters), and keep HTML
    separete from MIME's rich text, proposing it as a
    MIME text standard.
    (HP0 and HP1 were in the HTML spec but as unimplemented)

4. The MIME format for external document addresses (MIME UDIs)

    As Ed <[e-mail]> says, this is a bit of a non-issue,
    as MIME addersses and currnet style UDIs map onto
    each other. However, we have to agree on a "concrete
    syntax" (or two... :-) in the end.

    It's like the difference between an x400 style mail address
    generated from an internet address, and that internet address.
    Which do you prefer

        [e-mail]

    where the sections of the domain name are defined
    to have no semantics at all, or

        S=timbl; HO=zippy; OU=lcs; O=MIT; SECTOR=edu

    (this is not real x400 - don't use it!) or

        user=timbl
        host=zippy
        group=lcs
        organization=mit
        sector=education

    You say, Dan, that you "don't think [UDIs] work".
    Do you mean people don't use them in all correspondance?
    Well, what DO they use? They use ange-ftp addresses
    for FTP (like info.cern.ch:/pub/www/doc/*.ps),
    which are even more terse than UDIs! They use news
    message-ids which are UDIs.

    Let me say that I personally don't much care about the
    arbitrary punctuation. There are a few things, though,
    which are important:

    -  The thing should be printable 7-bit ASCII.

       Unlike arbitrary document formats,
       UDIs must be sendable in the mail

    - White space should not be significant. I would
      accept the presence of some arbitrary white space
      as a delimiter, but one cannot distinguish between
      different forms and quantities of white space.
      This is because things get wrapped and unwrapped.

      Dan, you object to UDIs because they don't
      contain white space. But that is purely so that
      to CAN wrap them onto several lines and still
      recuperate them.  You can put white space
      in but it shouldn't mean anything. (This is not possible
      in W3 as is but it is in the UDI document)

      I don't see why you say they
      can't be put as an SGML attribute. They are just
      text strings. They will be quoted of course
      (Yes, I know the old NeXT browser doesn't quote them)
      Is that not allowed? What are the problem characters?
      If there SGML problem characters in the UDI spec, they
      probably are ruled out of SGML for a reason.

      (I recently saw in a galley proof of an article in which
      our mail adress had been hypernated! UDIs must be
          squeezable into 2 inch columns.)

        There is a sematic difference between a tagged
    list and a punctuation-divided set, and that is that
    the former has defined semantics but the latter doesn't and
    can therefore be extended more easily.  I suggest that tagging
    could be used for the four bits of an address
    that must be separable by all sides, which are
    limited in number (4). Within those bits, the string should
    be transparent as the protocol does not require
    every party to understand the innards.

    The bits are
            MIME        Used by

    name space:    ACCESS        Used by client

    server details:    HOST, PORT    used by client, protocol-dependent

    local doc id:    PATH        used by server only

    anchor id:     (none)        used by presntation application only

    It seems useful to maintain the ability to work out which
    bits are seen by whom.

    I only used punctation to separate these parts in the W3 UDI
    because people like internet addresses and mail addresses
    and filenames and telephone numbers and message-ids and
    room numbers and zip codes which don't have tags and
    do make do with punctuation.  If the groundswell of
    opionion on this list is that tags are better, then
    let's use tags!

    Whatever we sue, it should be as quotable in an SGML
    attribute as in a MIME external reference as in a
    scribbled note or a link-pasteboard or whatever.
    (The U is for Universal, NOT Unique!)

PHILOSOPHY

    In the W3 world, the model is of a dynamic world of
    documents which generally have some "home" or
    (or several), which can be found using sufficient
    intelligence and the help of ones friends given the UDI.

    A mail message has no home, and so in principle the parts
    of it have no home. When a hypertext multipart message
    (really consisting of multiple hypertext documents)
    has links between its parts they refer to each other
    within a completely isolated conetext.

    There are now two possibilites when the message is in fact
    archived and made readable. One is we say that the parts
    are then addressed as parts ofthe message, wherever it
    may be. The other is to say that the parts of the message
    are very likely things which had some original home.
    In that case, the message is just giving the reciever
    a copy to save him the (perhaps insurmountable) trouble
    of retrieving it.  In this case the parts should be
    identified with thier original UDIs so that the
    receiver is not confsed with multiple documents which
    are in fact the same thing.


I think that's all the comments I have on what I've read so far..

    Tim
________________________________________________________________
Tim Berners-Lee
World-Wide Web initiative
CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland        [e-mail]
Visiting MIT: NE43-513, [phone]    [e-mail]