>So what Martins draft needs to say is something like "If the scheme
of the
>URI is 'http', then the entity that is returned SHOULD have the
>Content-Type message/rfc822". Then whatever system asked for the
>Archived-At object to be retrieved has a decent chance of being able
to
>display and process it like an email.
I don't think my draft should say anything normatively about what
should come back. Saying that it should be message/rfc822 would be
against something like 100% of current practice and running code.
I strongly disagree. When a message is archived, it should be
faithfully archived. Or a least, if a message is going to point to an
archive of itself, it should be a faithful archive. Archives in other
formats are less functional and often lose information as compared to
the original.
Keith