"Adam M. Costello"
<ietf-822(_dot_)amc+0(_at_)nicemice(_dot_)net(_dot_)RemoveThisWord> writes:
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
I'd also recommend that the link point to an archived copy of the
message in original form, rather than, say, one that is translated
to HTML. Translating to HTML causes a loss of information and
potentially a loss of functionality. You should be able to reply to
an archived message, refile it into a folder, follow threads, etc.,
but those things are harder to do if the message is no longer in its
original format.
Thinking about this I realized that one reason I'd like such a field
is so that I could, given a message, more easily find other messages
in the thread.
Actually, if the link points to a message/rfc822 resource, won't it be
harder to find the other messages in the thread than if the link points
to a text/html page with hyperlinks? On the other hand, it's easier to
reply to a message if it's given in message/rfc822 form (or at least, it
could be, with a little browser support). Maybe it would be best for
the Archived-At: field to point to a text/html page which in turn links
to a message/rfc822 version of the same message.
Another idea is to serve both message/rfc822 and text/html at the same
URI. Browsers generally indicate the format they want, and servers
can pick the right content accordingly. As far as conformance is
concerned, message/rfc822 could be a MUST (to make it useful from
progrms), and text/html be a MAY (to improve rendering for humans).
On the other hand, perhaps this solution is too fragile.