- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 23:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
- To: erik@netscape.com, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Cc: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@INNOSOFT.COM>, ietf-charsets@ISI.EDU, murata@fxis.fujixerox.co.jp, Tatsuo_Kobayashi@justsystem.co.jp
> Are you saying that the MIME standard somehow attempts to specify > what is or is not allowed in other protocols, like HTTP, HTML, XML, etc? > > Or are you referring to other email-like protocols, like NNTP > perhaps? Or ACAP? Or IMAP? POP? The MIME standard applies to all protocols that claim to be compliant with the MIME standard. (This is a tautology, isn't it?). Frankly, I think we could do with a new top-level type that wasn't "text" but was like text, without the restrictions that would disallow UTF-16. On the other hand, most XML (and some HTML) would more reasonably be characterized as 'application' rather than 'text' anyway. > I'm just trying to come up with a non-confusing wording for that > sentence in the UTF-16 > registration. Your help is appreciated. What wording would you suggest? Here's an attempt: # In accordance with the rules on end-of-line convention and 'text/', # UTF-16 is inappropriate for use with 'text' media types. Those media types # which might be deployed with UTF-16 might consider registering an # 'application' type as well. --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Friday, 15 May 1998 11:04:30 UTC