Keith,
I think our debate has pretty much run its course. I happen to think
HTTP-based archives have greater utility than you appear to do, but that's
fine.
(Answering another question on this list recalled to me that one of the
benefits of this proposal used in conjunction with HTTP-based archives is
that it makes it easier to construct threads of discussion and reasoning
that may be completely separate from specific message/response sequences
seen in any single email thread.)
While I don't regard it as essential, I've no objection that the spec might
say some things about the topics you suggest, assuming that it doesn't
become overbearing. And, of course, someone has to provide some suitable text.
#g
--
At 10:39 24/02/04 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
So I'm currently thinking that Archived-At needs to supply more
information: namely the content types that are available. An
alternative might be to use a HEAD request to find out what
content-types are available.
Either way, this document probably needs to say some things about
- use of different representations of email messages, with native
(message/rfc822) format being strongly encouraged as the primary
format and HTML as a useful alternative.
- use of HTTP vs. IMAP (maybe also mentioning POP or even NNTP)
as an access protocol
- how a mail reader (or for that matter a web browser) should decide
whether to handle the message itself or hand it off to a different
tool.
- (maybe) organization of mail archives.
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact