- From: Albert Lunde <Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 11:00:19 -0600
- To: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 9:51 AM 12/28/94 -0500, Gavin Nicol wrote:
>Albert Lunde writes:
>>Of course text/html is not the only text/* type we might have to
>>transport....
>
>Surely most parsers for other textual data types need not grovel
>around at the data storage format level? Most can surely be abstracted
>enough that they can deal with a character as an atom of information
>rather than as a sequence of bytes?
This is a reasonable assumption, I'm not sure if it is a safe assumption.
SGML seems to take a more abstract view of text than an average software
package.
Though it does seem like there aren't many text/* types actually registered
so far to give us a guide as to what to expect. Some of the potential
text-like hard cases (i.e. postscript) are registered as application types.
According to the list at:
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types>
registered text types are:
text plain [RFC1521,NSB]
richtext [RFC1521,NSB]
enriched [RFC1563]
tab-separated-values [Paul Lindner]
The comp.mail.mime FAQ lists unregistered text types in actual use (by some
mail software) as:
Text types:
text/html MHonArc: WWW HTML
text/unknown Worldtalk
text/x-html MHonArc: WWW HTML
text/x-setext MHonArc: setext
text/x-usenet-faq Ohio State WWW FAQ document format
---
Albert Lunde Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu
Received on Wednesday, 28 December 1994 11:13:25 UTC