To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, In-Reply-To: Nathaniel Borenstein's message of Thu, 22 Oct 1992 06:35:59 -0700 <cetesz_0M2Yt53sZli@thumper.bellcore.com> Subject: Re: misconceptions about MIME [long] From: Larry Masinter <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <92Oct22.email@example.com> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 11:30:46 PDT I recall being flamed rather severely by Ned Freed when I suggested that MIME was inadequate because the specification of format-types such as 'postscript' or 'gif' didn't specify enough about format versions, external resources used, etc. Many of his arguments were based on the practical difficulties of requiring any kind of additional standardization for document format versions in a distributed mail application. Now that MIME is out as a proposal for mail, I still believe that these problems should be addressed before MIME is appropriate for database, archival and retrieval applications. In addition, the current mechanism in MIME for external references suffers the same problem that other references mechanisms that are based on hostname/pathname have: files move, change in place, host names come and go over the years. Both these problems are not trival to solve, but I don't think they are unsolvable.