W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: Is MHTML only for e-mail?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:23:10 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: mhtml@segate.sunet.se, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4529
At 12:05 PM 10/5/97 -0700, Einar Stefferud wrote:

>I think that we have been slowly converging on our positions over
>time, to the point of understanding that HTTP and SMTP/RFC822 and
>other different application transports must be kept separate from MIME


>Perhaps part of what we are recognizing is that there are two classes
>of "TRANSPORT" protocols.  One just above the IP level that deals with
>data streams and user datagrams that deal with interoperability, and
>another class just below MIME that deals with transport of Application
>Information Objects to provide what I like to call "interworkability".

Why just TWO classes?  Within this expanded idea of a "transport" protocol
(which I accept) I would suggest that "transport" protocols can be
identified at several levels within an extended protocol stack.

As new "applications" are constructed and become widely deployed, I would
hope to see layered architectures within those applications which separate
issues of control, data transport, information representation, user
interface, etc.  Hence these new applications would define protocols which
themselves can be used as a basis for future developments.

I think what you describe is just a step in a continuing evolutionary
process of building new applications upon the infrastructure of previous


Graham Klyne
Received on Thursday, 9 October 1997 01:32:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC