At 18:05 26/10/04 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>So what Martins draft needs to say is something like "If the scheme of the
>URI is 'http', then the entity that is returned SHOULD have the
>Content-Type message/rfc822". Then whatever system asked for the
>Archived-At object to be retrieved has a decent chance of being able to
>display and process it like an email.
I don't think my draft should say anything normatively about what
should come back. Saying that it should be message/rfc822 would be
against something like 100% of current practice and running code.
I strongly disagree. When a message is archived, it should be faithfully
archived. Or a least, if a message is going to point to an archive of
itself, it should be a faithful archive. Archives in other formats are
less functional and often lose information as compared to the original.
Archives that exist and work (as does the scheme described by Martin) are
infinitely more functional than ones that don't.
Isn't that the point of "running code..."?
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact