[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Massive Content-Type definition ideas & Gopher

1993-06-09 12:24:50
At 10:02 AM 6/9/93 -0700, David Herron wrote (but is probably not to be
blamed for):
- Go ahead and define COMPRESSED-<encoding> encodings.

I think that lumping the compression and the encoding into one identifier
is wrong.  This *IS* a compound operation, and I would prefer that the
syntax reflect it rather than try to euphemize it away.

I'm aware that nested encodings and conversions are Not Popular, but
exactly who is this syntax intended to fool?  Either nested encoding or
conversions are not ALWAYS a bad thing, or this compression idea IS a bad

I see three advantages to making "compressed" a first-class citizen of one
sort or another:

1. It reduces the number of names that need to be registered and handled.

2. It makes it possible to use compression with private encodings. 
"compressed-x-uuencode" is just another identifier.  Even if I know how to
"x-uuencode" and I know how to "compressed", it cannot occur to me that
this encoding is a "compressed" followed by an "x-uuencode".  Or if it does
occur to me, it can occur only heuristically; I get no support from the

3. It is Truthful and Honest and Morally Good.  :-)

To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)mordor(_dot_)stanford(_dot_)edu>  (Non Receipt 
Requested) (IPM Return Requested)
Cc: David Herron <david(_at_)twg(_dot_)com>  (Non Receipt Notification 
Requested) (IPM
Return Requested),
       ietf-822(_at_)dimacs(_dot_)rutgers(_dot_)edu (Non Receipt Notification 
Requested) (IPM
Return Requested)

Isn't it about time that there was a standard for doing return receipts, at
the very least so that I could teach my mailer to hide stuff like this?

Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Inc.
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel IngSoc.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>