Re: MIME type chemical/*

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@networking.stanford.edu> Sat, 27 May 1995 17:49 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02659; 27 May 95 13:49 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02655; 27 May 95 13:49 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07959; 27 May 95 13:49 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02648; 27 May 95 13:49 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02644; 27 May 95 13:49 EDT
Received: from Mordor.Stanford.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07949; 27 May 95 13:49 EDT
Received: from [204.118.88.2] (dial-cup2-13.iway.aimnet.com [204.118.88.43]) by Mordor.Stanford.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA27567; Sat, 27 May 1995 10:50:29 -0700
X-Sender: dcrocker@mailhub.aimnet.com
Message-Id: <v03002006abed0e215a65@[204.118.88.2]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 10:50:01 -0700
To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@networking.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: MIME type chemical/*
Cc: ietf-types@uninett.no, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US

At 2:06 AM 5/23/95, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no wrote:
>The IESG has received a request to consider "A Chemical Primary Content
>Type for  Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions"
><draft-rzepa-chemical-mime-type-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard. This is

        harald, thank you for forwarding this announcement.

        I wish to register my strong opposition to the advancement of the
proposed addition to the major mime types.

1.  Addition of major types is something that must be done only after
careful considering by the MIME technical community.  To date, every such
consideration has resulted in a negative assessment for the enhancement.
Rather pointedly, the bias of the MIME community is AWAY from adding major
types.

2.  It is necessary for any such proposal to clearly state a convincing
argument for the MIME processing benefits to be accrued.  That case has not
been made for 'chemical'.  The question of 'chemical' as such an
enhancement was in fact discussed some months back and I, for one, did not
detect any rough consensus in favor of it.

3.  Addition of 'chemical' to the list of major MIME types steps us onto a
slippery slope.  Many other, equally legitimate types are likely to be
suggested.  We do not, yet, understand how to handle a massive number of
major types.

d/

ps.  It would be quite helpful if this effort resulted in an improved
understanding of MIME type enhancement...

--------------------
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg Consulting                                  +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr.                                    fax:  +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA  94086                             page:  +1 408 581 1174
USA                                         email:  dcrocker@aimnet.com