Re: Equivalences for MIMEs multipart/xxx?

[David Herron <[e-mail]>]

This is embarrassing ...

>You're looking at the wrong document. See DRAFT-IETF-MIMEMHS-MAPPING-01.TXT;
>this specifies the general structural mapping while the other document
>(DRAFT-IETF-MIMEMHS-BODY-EQUIVAL-02.TXT) specifies only the mapping of
>atomic bodyparts.
>
>I personally don't like this separation and I think these should be folded
>into a single document. (Just my opinion.)

I even had the other one printed out and lying on my desk (tho' buried
under a pile of other papers ..)

I don't think the subjects of the two documents are separate enough to
justify separate RFCs.  Most of the "body equivalences" document can be
slid into subsections of "mapping"'s section 3.  But I just had an ah-hah
which might provide a reason for keeping them separate ..

The "mapping" RFC defines the general concepts and other things which do not 
change often (ever).  After all, there oughtn't be a need for new "multipart"
subtypes as the current ones are sufficient for everything imaginable.

The "body equivalences" RFC defines the mappings for other body part types.
This can (should) be extended every time IANA assigns a new equivalence.
Reissuing this RFC should be of "low mental cost" and can be done frequently.

If the previous two paragraphs are not true, then the division should
be rethought.  (if only to avoid other mistakes from people losing track
of one or the other of them...)

>I'll leave stuff about the mailing list for someone else to answer. ...

Well.. I *thought* we weren't on the list.  But we apparently are since
a copy of my message arrived back here & one of my colleagues pointed
out receiving a copy as well ... so I just forgot about it...

<- David Herron <[e-mail]> (work) <[e-mail]> (home)
<-
<- During the '80s Usenet's mantra was: "Not all the world's a VAX".
<- During the '90s I hope it becomes:   "Not all the world's DOS (ick)".