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
- MIME type chemical/* Chris Newman
- Re: MIME type chemical/* John C Klensin
- Re: MIME type chemical/* John C Klensin
- Re: MIME type chemical/* Dave Crocker