Believe me, I've thought about that one a lot. First of all, I don't
think we necessarily need to make any changes that aren't backwards
compatible, which is the only way MIME-version would need to be
changed. If there were (and they were important enough), I'd be
willing (sigh) to revisit the issue if necessary and see if there's any
way to move MIME-version off the mark, although I know it would be very
hard. But I don't know of any needed changes that would *require* a
MIME-version change, do you? -- Nathaniel
On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 11:25 PM, Al Costanzo wrote:
If the group cannot fix the mime version number stuck at version 1.0
since
day one dont bother writing anything. :(
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Borenstein" <nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com>
To: "Abhijit Menon-Sen" <ams(_at_)wiw(_dot_)org>
Cc: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>;
<ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: MIME roadmap (was Re: Dual names [...] in e-mail
addresses?)
On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 11:50 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
Yes. (And I'd be happy to write it, if nobody else wants to.)
I suspect that this will be most valuable if a whole bunch of us write
it together, actually. But before anyone starts writes anything, I
think it's worth clarifying our goals, which might be:
-- Providing a tour of the MIME-related RFC's for new implementors
-- Updating various of the MIME RFC's to bring them mutually up to
date
and in sync with RFC 2822
-- Fixing specific minor problems with MIME that have accumulated in
the last decade. (I suspect this list is small but non-zero.)
Are we talking about some or all of the above, and are they best
viewed
as a single task or multiple tasks? For my part, I'm not interested
in
doing this more than once every decade or so, and would therefore be
more interested in something reasonably comprehensive. -- Nathaniel