At 18:38 04/10/27, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>Graham Klyne writes:
>> 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..."?
>
>Work is the key word, and the meaning of work depends on context.
>
>Archives on the web must work in the context of the web, IMNSHO. And
similarly, archives pointed to by message/rfc822 header fields must/should
work in the context of message/rfc822 handling programs, because those are
the programs that look at such fields.
As said in other mails, the way we use these headers, it's mostly
humans rather than email programs using them. Is there something
in the email specs (e.g. RFC 2822 or so) that would forbid such
headers?
Thinking the other way round, your comments above seem to indicate
that you think the Web and Email should both work as two separate
worlds. The reason for the proposal at hand, however, is to
create possibilies for better connections between these worlds.
Another point, mentioning it in this mail just because it came
to my mind just now: as far as I remember, RFC 2369 does not
say anything about how email messages should or should not be
archived.
Regards, Martin.
>(That doesn't necessarily mean that the retrieved object must have a
certain content-type. I can imagine other ways to achieve the same end.)
>
>Arnt
>