Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt
2004-10-27 05:47:26
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.
Archives that exist and work (as does the scheme described by Martin)
are infinitely more functional than ones that don't.
It's much easier to make the _entire system_ "work" if the archives use
a format that is already supported by the email readers that will use
this header field. All of those email readers support rfc 822 and know
how to do reasonable things with 822 messages. Even those that support
HTML don't know how to do things like reply to messages formatted as
HTML because when you reformat a message into HTML all of the semantic
content from the original message is lost.
Archives that preserve the original message format do exist and work,
are trivial to implement, and used to be the norm. When I ran several
IETF mailing lists, every single one of them archived messages in
original format. It took around five lines of script to generate a
unique file name, and write the message to that file.
The only reason we don't see mail archives in original format so much
today is that many recent archive packages are designed to allow
messages to be accessed from web browsers. But there's no reason why
an archive package can't make a message available in its original
format (instead of, or in addition to, HTML). And it's not as if it's
difficult to tell an http server that an extension of (say) .MIME or
.822 equates to message/rfc822. You can even do content-negotiation so
that a client gets HTML or 822 depending on its preferences.
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, (continued)
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Martin Duerst
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt,
Keith Moore <=
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Bruce Lilly
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Bruce Lilly
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Bruce Lilly
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Martin Duerst
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Graham Klyne
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Keith Moore
- Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Martin Duerst
|
|
|