In <20040823114511(_dot_)173b4589(_dot_)moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
But it is too pessimistic to predict that they will not be used/generated
correctly. Why ever not?
because such distinctions are only rarely recognzied by existing
mbox-reading software - and are of even less consequence to humans.
But we are not talking about existing mbox-reading software (which is
either tailored to some particular mbox format, or else tries to cover the
most general case it can imagine).
Sure we are. Having a label mostly makes things easier to get the content to
and from such software.
We are talking about a new application type, which we presume some people
will write new software to generate/accept (otherwise there is little
point in having the application type).
On the contrary, the main reason for having it is to make existing readers and
writers work better. Although some software will undoubtedly get written in due
course, it is unlikely in the extreme that a media type label (or lack of one)
will encourage (or impede) such development.
This is just another way of letting the mostly unachievable best be the enemy
of the plenty good enough, something I observe happening over and over and over
again in this discussion.
Ned