At 9:11 PM -0700 8/15/96, John C Klensin wrote:
* Does "having an implementation" as IETF is prone to define
it, imply that there are mechanisms to create specified relevant
forms as well as reading them?
create or otherwise map different data into different mime types. yes.
* Should one consider a particular MUA to be an
"implementation" if it provides sufficient facility that a user
can carefully hand-edit an outgoing message into conformity to a
particular form or option?
permit is different than require. permit them to hand-edit, sure.
require it, e.g., in lieue of having the software, itself, do the work. no
way.
* Do we consider that some form is "implemented" if, e.g., the
"default if you don't recognize" option is taken? For example,
if few MUAs actually support receipt of multipart/alternative
with tables of preferences rather than treating it as a variant
on multipart/mixed, has "multipart/alternative" been
"implemented"? Following up the question above, if the only way
no.
And so on for any number of MIME features.
Harald, I don't want to derail the train here, but I think I
object to the idea of removing features that have not been
independently implemented (whatever that means) and used only
when a document comes up for full standard. As I read the
Yes, we need to audit functions not implemented and remove them
from the spec. do you have any candidates for removal?
d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr.
dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com
Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com
Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org,
info(_at_)imc(_dot_)org