Excerpts from ext.ietf-822: 21-Aug-92 MIME Clarifications STILL w.. Dana
S Emery(_at_)umail(_dot_)umd(_dot_)e (1024*)
BTW, does anyone else share my opinion that RT, as presently defined, is a bit
too rich?
IMHO, it should be limited to character styles only, and should defer
the matter
of more complex Doc transmision to an attachment strategy.
I think that those of us who care mostly feel that it is a bit *too*
fixated on character styles, and should be restricted to markings such
as <quotation>, <emphasis>, <example>, <code>, <list>, <proper-name>,
and so on, without saying anything about how that particular marking is
actually rendered at the recipient's site. It's not just a matter of
having the right font; different cultures represent the same idea with
different markup -- using italics instead of bold, or bold instead of
italics. The important information to transmit is *why* a particular
word is in italics, not that *you* like to see that particular markup
idea rendered in an italic font; so we'd have
<shipname>Normandie<\shipname>, rather than <italic>Normandie<\italic>.
Bill