I think this thread is getting bogged down in technical points without
a clear overview. Rather than respond to each good point you've
raised, I'd like to try another line which broadly summarizes my view
and is perhaps more useful to the list.
I generally agree with you that double compression is useless, where
we differ is where the single compression step should be applied. You
propose that it should occur in the MIME format, while I still believe
it should be a transparent service at a level much closer to the OS.
Since XML data seems to be the main beneficiary mentioned thus far of
the CTE (37% base64 overhead aside), let me ask what the proponents
aim to achieve in this instance?
Other media types such as audio/video/images are already compressed so
won't benefit substantially from a CTE. Is the idea of CTE compression
simply a way to pass the burden of XML compression onto another
system level?
XML is by design a textual format. An explicit goal of this format
is the ability for humans and other programs to easily read and
modify it. The internet message format has similar goals, although
MIME more generally may not.
If space is such a serious concern, I ask: why shouldn't XML applications
simply read and write XML directly in compressed form when needed
(you already gave the example of OpenOffice) ?
There would be no need for MIME readers and writers to be adapted at
all, and the physical benefits would be comparable.
Now if the arguments against this are that this requirement would
complicate XML applications needlessly, obscure data against the
purpose of XML, and could be handled at a lower system level such that
other programs can also benefit, then this also summarizes my current
position on MIME/email (as opposed to MIME alone - but substantial
changes to MIME cannot be ignored by email).
--
Laird Breyer.