Re: Update of the MIME-MHS Specs

"Carl S. Gutekunst" <csg@hideji.worldtalk.com> Fri, 06 May 1994 21:17 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08820; 6 May 94 17:17 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08816; 6 May 94 17:17 EDT
Received: from survis.surfnet.nl by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13854; 6 May 94 17:17 EDT
Received: from relay1.UU.NET by survis.surfnet.nl with SMTP (PP) id <09575-0@survis.surfnet.nl>; Fri, 6 May 1994 23:03:57 +0200
Received: from uucp4.uu.net by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwoto02881; Fri, 6 May 94 17:03:49 -0400
Received: from worldtlk.UUCP by uucp4.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL ; Fri, 6 May 1994 17:03:49 -0400
Received: from hideji.worldtalk.com by worldtalk.com with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA14424; Fri, 6 May 94 14:00:48 -0700
Received: by hideji.worldtalk.com (5.61/1.5) id AA19671; Fri, 6 May 94 14:04:39 -0700
Date: Fri, 06 May 1994 14:04:39 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Carl S. Gutekunst" <csg@hideji.worldtalk.com>
Message-Id: <9405062104.AA19671@hideji.worldtalk.com>
To: Ned Freed <NED@sigurd.innosoft.com>
Cc: mime-mhs@surfnet.nl
Subject: Re: Update of the MIME-MHS Specs
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 06 May 1994 10:20:39 PDT <01HC0L8D8OQG8Y51FB@SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Id: <19669.768258278.1@hideji.worldtalk.com>

>>I believe the original IETF ruling on this issue still applies.
>
>There's never been any such ruling....  The only case that has ever been
>dealt with is that of PostScript.

I'm probably thinking of the protracted discussion over PostScript versioning
in the IETF rfc-xxxx mailing list, way back when, and some followup discussion
I had with Erik Fair around Interop '91.  It seemed like the debate over
version numbers went all over the place.

>>Another problem would be keeping the number of image, video, and audio
>>subtypes under control....
>
>This is, of course, just your position. Other people may disagree with it.

Well, I said that would be a point of dispute, didn't I?  :-)  Clearly there
are two camps WRT burden on the gateway vs. burden on the user agents, and
some fuzzy middle ground in between.  Obviously it would take less time to
just register, say, SND, Wave, and VOC formats than to pick one of them and
agree on a mapping among them, no matter how simple.  But it would be really
nice for the UAs to have to deal with just one....

>> Either or both of these may be fabrication.
>
>Reality check time....  Both are nonsense, period.

Thanks!  The first of these came from an EMA committee member (not BP15) who
had no reason not to have had the facts straight.  To borrow the cliche, it
would seem to be like the 13th chime of a clock, calling into question all
those that preceded and followed it....

<csg>