In case anyone hasn't guessed, not having PostScript in some form is a
SHOW-STOPPER for me.
I agree with Ned on this one. Almost every Fax/Email gateway includes
PostScript support. Dropping the PostScript sub-type will not stop people
from mailing PostScript, it will only continue the use of entirely proprietary
methods of doing so. Any security problems will continue to exist. It seems
to me that clearly demarcated PostScript will be safer than random PostScript.
This may also be true of troff and TeX; however, it seems that these could
benefit from additional specifications (macros, etc.) unnecessary for
PostScript.
Regarding the open issues:
A. 1: Audio formats - I'd prefer the body part to be self-identifying,
otherwise there's a question of the proper storage format.
A. 2: Checksums/Integrity Checks - if we're going to get this resolved in
Santa Fe, a strawman would be very helpful.
A. 3: Non-ASCII Headers - other than several suggestions to move this
out of RFC-XXXX, the silence is deafening. What's going on?
There were several demands for this earlier - if they are still
demands, I'd like to hear them before Santa Fe. Otherwise, punt.
A. 4: Quoted-printable encoding - if underscores won't make it through
some gateways, then leave space as =20 or ' '. (Is there a better
character that would satisfy both gateways and the Moore proposal?).
B. 3: /alternative - someone must have a good reason for this to be
mandatory. This is not a SHOW-STOPPER, but I'd like to hear it.
B. 7: Text-plus - again, not a SHOW-STOPPER, but this doesn't exactly
seem to be a Text sub-type. The Text-plus sub-types are dwindling,
but I still see a distinction at the top level.
B. 12: Body-Version header - what's the resistance to Content-Version?
Definitely no big deal, just curious.
This is looking very good. Items A.2 and A.3 seem to be the only real
hurdles. Kudos to Nathaniel, Ned and all the list gurus.
Jim