- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:45:04 -0800
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > 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. Agreed. But if content-transfer-encoding is not specified then it defaults to 7-bit. Which won't apply to most of the Miffy use cases (at least what I envision as to where Miffy would result in the most benefit). In most cases, the content-transfer-encoding would be 'binary' (unless a transport such as SMTP is used, in which case it prabably will be 'base64'). > 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. > If the content-transfer-encoding is 'base64' then the Miffy interpreter would have to apply the correct decoding. > 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. Pl see my other email (sent in response to your email sent to xmlp-comments). Thanks for raising the issue on xml-comments. > > 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 > 1-617-693-4036 > -------------------------------------- > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 14:49:33 UTC