Re: The MIME debate - my conclusions
"John W. Noerenberg" <jwn2@qualcomm.com> Thu, 22 August 1996 08:40 UTC
Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa26748; 22 Aug 96 4:40 EDT
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa26744; 22 Aug 96 4:40 EDT
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03991;
22 Aug 96 4:40 EDT
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net
(8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA24667; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:25:59 -0400
Received: from mage.qualcomm.com (mage.qualcomm.com [129.46.50.61]) by
list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24649 for
<ietf-822@list.cren.net>; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:25:36 -0400
Received: from [129.46.54.89] (ra4000-p9.qualcomm.com [129.46.54.89]) by
mage.qualcomm.com (8.7.5/1.4d/8.7.2/1.11) with ESMTP id BAA29990;
Thu, 22 Aug 1996 01:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v03007804ae41c7239085@[129.46.54.89]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 01:23:49 -0700
X-Orig-Sender: owner-ietf-822@list.cren.net
Precedence: bulk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: "John W. Noerenberg" <jwn2@qualcomm.com>
To: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Cc: ietf-822@list.cren.net, Ned.Freed@innosoft.com, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: The MIME debate - my conclusions
In-Reply-To: <01I8ILCUR1C48Y5617@INNOSOFT.COM>
References: "Your message dated Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:38:34 +0200"
<26212.840530314@domen.uninett.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Sender: jwn2@mage.qualcomm.com
X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 3.0]
X-PGP-Fingerprint: EA 53 01 A6 C0 76 F9 C2 09 E8 94 80 64 5A 88 57
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
At 11:09 PM -0700 8/20/96, Ned Freed wrote: >> I have reached the following preliminary conclusion, based on the >> evidence collected in the Web page >> http://www.apps.ietf.org/apps/last-call/mime-draft2.html: > >> - Multipart/alternative is implemented. >> - Nested Body Parts are implemented. >> - External Body Parts are implemented. >> - Multipart/parallel is NOT implemented. > >I strongly object to this last. Multipart/parallel had multiple, interoperable >implementations in 1990, before MIME even appeared as an RFC. Facilities >to generate parallel objects without hand editing also exist. Yes, but implementations aren't the only criteria. There must also be significant adoption of the construct by users, as well. So far in this discussion, the only comments are that there is little evidence of use, despite the implementations. If multipart/parallel hasn't found acceptance in 6 years, then I'm inclined to think it is unlikely to do so in the future. It may be wrong to say there are no implementations. But I've yet to see evidence that the user population at large has embraced it. john noerenberg jwn2@qualcomm.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- Once the land touches you, the wind never blows so cold again. You feel for the land like it was your child. When that happens to you, you can't be bought. -- W. P. Kinsella, "Shoeless Joe", 1982 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- The MIME debate - my conclusions Harald.T.Alvestrand
- Re: The MIME debate - my conclusions Ned Freed
- Re: The MIME debate - my conclusions John W. Noerenberg