Erik,
Despite my strong sympathies for SGML, I do see some value in
something very lightweight and richtext-like (although I'd prefer to
see it separated from MIME).
Let's take its separation as a done deed, given Greg's comments and
the fact that I don't think we've heard "keep it in" strongly from anyone
on this round. Given that, would it be reasonable to:
-- Let richtext go its way, presumably into a revision and another
round at "proposed", and try to strip everything complex (e.g., character
set switching) out of it. I think, given his comments, that is consistent
with Nathaniel's preferences too.
-- Those who are interested and have (or are willing to get) the needed
expertise start designing a DTD or profile for SGML that would be, as you
suggest, more appropriate to email and medium-weight text use than
unrestricted SGML.
This would potentially give us a four-level hierarchy, with complexity of
potential document and the amount of fussing around needed to process it
rising as:
-- plain text in some character set
-- richtext
-- SGML with DTD/profile for email use, DTD not included in mail file
-- Full SGML, with DTD, etc., transmitted as part of the mail file or
with an explicit external reference.
The third of these will inherently be a proper (capability and syntax)
subset of the fourth. While I'd prefer to see some harmonization between
the second and third that would permit a proper subset relationship to
hold there too, it would be better to do the third and then see if that
is possible than to keep sniping at each other now. And, if "richtext"
is made lightweight enough and mail-SGML subsetting turns out to not
be possible, it probably isn't all that serious.
--john