-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In message <200506062306(_dot_)58644(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>, Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes
My complaints with 3676 and its predecessor are that it
[]
is based on silly assertions, e.g.
sect. 3.3 "programs treat unknown subtypes of TEXT as an attachment" vs.
Full quote
A proposal to define a new media type to explicitly represent the
paragraph form
(that proposal was text/paragraph)
suffered from a lack of interoperability with currently deployed
software. Some programs treat unknown subtypes of TEXT as an
attachment.
At the time that 2646 was written, Outlook and Outlook Express both
treated "text/unknown" as attachments (they may or may not still do
that).
Given the bogosity of the "treat [...] as an attachment" claim,
I see no "bogosity". text/paragraph foundered on the (broken) treatment
of text/unknown by some very common clients.
(Perhaps "Some programs treated unknown..." would have been slightly
better though.)
precisely why couldn't this markup format have been handled as another
subtype (e.g. text/flowed)?
see above
- --
Ian Bell T U R N P I K E
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP SDK 3.5.0
iQA/AwUBQqVO1b3aNYn/fmK7EQJ4WQCg/iPCC5M7b/ov19hmZkYoL3ioMXIAn3tt
cQ5Aqv64KgqWLQT3TZCvpAMk
=Lxds
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----