| 2) Richtext needs some changes to deal with multi-byte character sets
| and new functionality. It may need to change more often then MIME.
| Proposed Solution: Remove Richtext from MIME itself into a separate
| document and standard.
I very strongly support this proposal.
So do I.
I would, as before, appreciate if MIME contained a mechanism such as
richtext to transfer more than "flat" text, but not richtext as specified.
There have been many important steps taken in this direction in the
International Standards arena, as well as in the de facto standards market.
I am, for natural reasons, inclined towards International Standards and the
Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) in particular. I have
previously proposed that we define an SGML application (as per ISO 8879),
using several application conventions to restrict the richness of SGML to
make the resulting application a relatively simple to implement. I have
received nothing but positive (private) responses on this, but only
handwaving from the authors of MIME.
I would also prefer a proposal based on SGML instead of "richtext".
Also "richtext" is a bad name as richtext has been used for other formats
that are not equivalent with the richtext of MIME (for example the ascii
format of MS Wrod documents).
Telia Research AB Email:
201 20 Malmo, Sweden