[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC XXXX's proper domain

1991-11-10 18:53:29
Lest my silence be mistaken for apathy:

OK, folks, start with the feedback...


Agreed on both points, Dave.  I've watched with growing alarm as the
charter of this WG has undergone what we software types call ``bloat.''
I don't like the conventions that are creeping in -- doing an extens-
ible content/encoding mechanism should not mention things like "troff"
except as an example; the actual formats and their names should be
specified separately in something like Assigned Numbers.  I know that
the current design answers the WG charter, but it does a lot more than
that and I remain unconvinced (a) that we need everything that's in
XXXX to just answer our charter, and (b) that we're on the right track
on how content/multipart/bodywhatever gets added to internet mail.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>