[Top] [All Lists]

Re: text/*

1998-11-10 08:39:31
Excerpts from bulk.interesting.lists: 9-Nov-98 Re: text/* Steve
Dorner(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)co (557*)

At 8:39 AM -0800 11/9/98, Laurence Lundblade wrote:
I do think it would be nice to have a top level type that meant: this is 
probably text you can look at and make sense of if you don't have an 
application that is willing to display it for you. The MUA 
implementations would then present the entity as an attachment or 
similar, but offer to display it if the user wants.

This is approximately the behavior of text/not{plain,html,enriched} 
nowadays, contrary to the spec.  Maybe we should just give up and say this 
is the correct behavior.

This makes sense to me.  But perhaps we should just say that it's an
*acceptable* behavior.

Excerpts from bulk.interesting.lists: 9-Nov-98 Re: text/* Laurence
Lundblade(_at_)qualc (786*)

I thought about that, but it would cause all the applications that do it 
correctly now to be out of spec, and it would probably recycle the RFC's to 

Maybe not, if there were *two* acceptable semantics -- the old and the
new.  Personally, I think both behaviors are basically acceptable.  --
Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)si(_dot_)umich(_dot_)edu>

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