Hi Bill,
Well, I realize I didn't make my case clearly or convincingly so I'm glad
to have a *good* reason as well. :-)
So let's proceed with just a single "type" entry in the header,
recognizing that we are going to be dealing with lots and lots of
headers of the form
Content-type: APPLICATION/MS-WORD;3
I think you're right, we'll see lots of this. It's a huge win to finally
have a standard way to send this.
I think as well, that we have to be very careful with allowing things to
be registered under IMAGE, or TEXT-PLUS. Are multi-page images
(PostScript) valid under IMAGE, or should they come under APPLICATION?
I would probably send this under IMAGE, maybe under TEXT-PLUS if it's mostly
textual, or intended for mark-up (which a lot of PostScript definitely is not).
By mostly textual, I mean text with a few formatting commands, which could
reasonably be displayed in the absence of a PostScript interpreter. I see
APPLICATION for body parts that require a specific application for proper
interpretation. Since PostScript should be handled properly by any good
interpreter, I think it can go under IMAGE. I see no harm in sending it
as, for instance, APPLICATION/Adobe Illustrator, if it was specifically
intended for use with that application. Of course, this all depends on
whether the new draft will allow the same sub-type under multiple types.
This is also stretching the original definition of application as something
to be processed by a mail-based application, but I think that definition
can be usefully extended. If not, we have to substitute BINARY for
APPLICATION which will often be less accurate.
If under IMAGE, what do we then say about multi-page images with a
defined temporal spacing between images (animations)? How about troff
that contains eqn? Fair game under TEXT-PLUS, or does it have to go
under APPLICATION?
I see animations under APPLICATION; if it arrives at my fax gateway under
IMAGE, the result will be a new form of super slo-mo :-). I'd guess that
a lot of troff would fit well under TEXT-PLUS; when it crosses the fuzzy
line of being "to some extent readable", it's better as APPLICATION.
There are definitely some gray areas, and I can see why some wanted the
types limited even more. Registration will hopefully clear up alot of this.
Jim