Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)thumper(_dot_)bellcore(_dot_)com> writes:
Interesting question: If we take verbatim out of enriched, it becomes
MUCH closer to richtext. If it were then renamed richtext version 2
(which I actually oppose, this is hypothetical) how far would this
really differ from the "refining richtext" idea you suggest? Frankly,
I've been thinking of text/enriched as being a refinement of
text/richtext all along....
The difference between "clarifying richtext" and creating a new format
is that a "clarified format" can be parsed mostly correct by a parser
for the existing richtext format. The name doesn't really matter to
me (in fact given the reasoning you mentioned, I'd support the
renaming).
The changes I consider substantive from a parsing viewpoint are the
<lt> to << change, the newline convention change, the <comment> ->
<param> change, and the "justification commands sometimes generate
newlines" change. The first three are probably improvements, but are
they worth the cost of inventing a new format and putting a question
mark over the stability of the MIME standard? I don't think so.
- Chris