Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft

Concerning removal of the requirement for a content-type field always
being present:

I don't like constants, either.  Theoretically, they provide no information.

In the world of email, however, conformance is such a problematic
issue that I'd like to strongly suggest that the content-type 'default'
ALWAYS be specified.  At a minimum, it makes the implementor take
responsibility for the content-type.

Dave

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, (continued) Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Mark Crispin Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Marshall Rose Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Mark Crispin Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Marshall Rose Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Mark Crispin Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Marshall Rose Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Mark Crispin Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Marshall Rose Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Mark Crispin Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Dave Crocker <= Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Keld J\|rn Simonsen Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Ned Freed, Postmaster Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Mark Crispin Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Marshall Rose Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, david Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Marshall Rose Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Nathaniel Borenstein

Previous by Date:	AUDIO, anyone?, Nathaniel Borenstein
Next by Date:	Re: Comment on encapsulation BNF in latest RFC-XXXX, henry
Previous by Thread:	Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Nathaniel Borenstein
Next by Thread:	Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft, Keld J\|rn Simonsen
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]