What does this say about richtext and simplemail? Perhaps just this:
* don't try and mix the two paradigms, user-agent and typing-by-hand
* consider a migration path from simpetext to richtext as user agents
becomre more common. This simply means that, if this is a preferred
migration path, simplemail concepts should map directly onto richtext ones
if possible.
(And maybe even further, being able to map richtext onto some kind of
SGML-for-mail DTD, so users can choose how complex they want to be in mail).
As a richtext implementor, I must say that I agree with Lee here 100%. If
it is possible to map simpletext (or whatever it is called this week :-) onto
richtext, a MIME implementor that wishes to go for full richtext support can
use the same formatting back-end for both formats, with just separate lexical
front-ends, reducing his or her workload immensely. Similarly, a smart
simpletext formatting back-end may be able cope with a subset of richtext
with a suitable front-end, providing a gradual migration path for the
MIME implementor.
Being able to convert some subset of richtext back into simpletext may be
nice too, especially for excerpts.
My proposal for the "enhanced textual e-mail" document to accompany MIME is
for us to discuss richtext, giving a well-defined semantics for it and then
subset it into simpletext, with the various lexical translations in place.
Having a common semantics for both is important to prevent confusion I feel.
I'll go away now and see if I can glue a simpletext front-end onto my richtext
parser to make sure I'm not talking through my hat ... :-)
Cheers,
Rhys.