Re: Line Wrapping Question

Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> Fri, 09 February 1996 05:53 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06378; 9 Feb 96 0:53 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06374; 9 Feb 96 0:53 EST
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01601; 9 Feb 96 0:53 EST
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01805; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 22:27:31 -0500
Received: from glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu (glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.81.2]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01787 for <ietf-822@list.cren.net>; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 22:26:51 -0500
Received: from resnick1.isdn.uiuc.edu by glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA06150; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 21:24:54 -0600
Message-Id: <v03004b06ad405ae3bb08@resnick1.isdn.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 21:23:06 -0600
X-Orig-Sender: owner-ietf-822@list.cren.net
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: tcrowley@vermeer.com, NED@innosoft.com, ietf-822@list.cren.net, sukvg@wspu.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: Line Wrapping Question
In-Reply-To: <96Feb8.151107pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
References: Terry Crowley's message of Thu, 8 Feb 1996 10:29:35 -0800 <BMSMTP82380242234tcrowley@vermeer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: resnick@glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu
X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 3.0a75-2.96]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0(beta) -- ListProcessor by CREN

On 2/8/96 at 5:10 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> If you're a vendor of MIME-capable software, support for text/enriched is a
>> must.
>
>Sorry to ask a stupid question, but why not use text/html instead of
>text/enriched?

There's two questions here: Why not generate text/html instead and why not
interpret text/html instead?

The answer to the first is easy:

1. Lots of mail packages now interpret text/enriched as a matter of course,
even though some simply unwrap the lines, remove the directives in '<>',
and get rid of the doubled '<' characters. In any event, that means that
you can pretty safely send text/enriched without too many users yelping as
loadly about text/enriched directives in the way they yelled about '=' in
QP. With text/html, most mail packages nowadays will just dump everything
to the screen since the only behavior for unknown text subtypes is to treat
it like text/plain. Users become pissy.

2. Text/enriched has some advantages over HTML, at insofar as RFC 1866 is
concerned. First, it also has no requirement for a <p> or <br> directive to
introduce a hard line break, which means that you can generate a nice plain
text message with no text/enriched markup at all and have it look fine on a
non-text/enriched viewer. Also, it has straight presentation markup, like
an <underline> directive and paragraph indentation, which e-mail users find
important; <blockquote> is not necessarily the markup you want when
something is indented. Newer HTML may address this, but that's not quite
here yet.

***HOWEVER***

Even *I* know that generating text/enriched is only a stop-gap. HTML is
coming at us like a fast moving train and we're going to have to deal with
it (and probably generate it) in the long run. So, the answer to the second
question is a rephrasing of Terry's original claim:

If you're a vendor of MIME-capable software, support for interpreting
text/html is must. Get started now. We certainly are.

pr

--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated
Home: (217)337-1905 / Fax: (217)337-1980