Re: HTML is not SMGL
Edward Vielmetti <emv@msen.com>
Message-id: <m0luXZf-0009YoC@nigel.msen.com>
To: jfg@dxcern.cern.ch (Jean Francois Groff)
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: HTML is not SMGL
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 08 Jun 92 01:01:02.
<9206072301.AA26164@dxcern.cern.ch>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 92 20:26:48 EDT
From: Edward Vielmetti <emv@msen.com>
The UDI vs. MIME argument is a non-arguement. MIME is sufficiently
flexible that if you construct an appropriate Content-type and define
its semantics appropriately it will accept UDI's and work accordingly.
"Simple matter of programming" :).
Explicit "attribute=value" tags are more flexible than the W3 approach
to turn the entire document ID into a big long string. I guess it
depends on whether you believe you are dealing with a big database
or a big file system. Both approaches have their place. Again as
a simplified case you have "udi=//host:port/path" as a MIME identifier
and all is well.
I expect that MIME will be available in many e-mail products over the next
3-5 years. Since the only application that has anywhere near universal
appeal on the net is e-mail, it strikes me as only appropriate that
hypertext systems try to get as much leverage from mail as they possibly
can.
--Ed