Erik Naggum writes:
I'm arguing that a relatively
minor change to, e.g. the comment element, is mandatory for one main
reason: regularity of language.
Actually, I pointed this out in private email some time ago, and
Nathaniel has updated the document (including the simple sample
program). The version that I'm looking at is dated January 1992 and I
got it from thumper.bellcore.com in the "usual" place.
Now that everybody is throwing rocks at richtext, maybe I can join in
the fun:
1. People are underestimating the impact that the current syntax will
have on readers with "unextended" (non-richtext) viewers. Several
comments have been made to the effect that Nathaniel's trial MIME
messages to this list are rather unreadable and disturbing.
Nathaniel, think of it this way: Would you post an important
announcement (e.g. your free software) in richtext format to some
Usenet newsgroups? If not, why not?
Specifically, I feel that the commands should be much shorter and less
intrusive e.g. "<bold>" -> ">b", preferably without the balancing
"</bold>" (but I don't feel strongly about this).
2. Switching to other character sets e.g. <ISO-8859-1> should be left to
other better specifications, such as my upcoming multilingual encoding
draft. :-)
3. The current richtext spec doesn't warn against the possibility of
encountering "<" within Japanese text. If MIME is to be accepted for
worldwide usage, it must take the Japanese encoding into account.
Given that these comments imply that I want major changes, I'd suggest
moving richtext to a different document.
Trying to make constructive comments,
Erik