W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Proposal for Miffy MIME Headers

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:29:25 -0500
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF827BD684.0A46C17B-ON85256DFF.005FF853@lotus.com>

Anish Karamarker writes:

> By that, you mean that receiver/decoder/reconstructor
> must not require the presence of such headers, but if
> they are present then they may have to be taken into
> account. Right?

> Specifically, I am thinking of 
> content-transfer-encoding.

Well, I'm not sure.  The only way we get legal MIME parts into a Miffy 
document is if they are encoded in the way our specification mandates. The 
responsibility of any Miffy "interpreter" is to understand that 
representation, whether or not content-transfer-encoding is specified.  I 
certainly agree that if specified the content-transfer-encoding must not 
lie, and I think it might be of use to generalized non-Miffy-aware tools. 
I'm not sure I see how its presence would affect the processing that would 
otherwise be done by a Miffy interpreter.

I think this may boil down to reconfirming that Miffy offers no 
optionality in the encoding used, regardless of whether the header is 
present.  Agreed?  Thanks.

BTW:  I think the term "interpreter" is somewhat confusing, but that's 
what the current Miffy draft calls it.

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 12:29:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:24 UTC