Re: ANNOUNCE: Hypermail in C, version 1.0 (fwd)

Daniel W. Connolly (
Mon, 5 Sep 1994 18:21:17 +0200

In message <>, Nick Arnett writes:
>I know that there was some discussion of standards for inclusion of HTML in
>mail and Usenet discussions, but I don't think there was any closure on it.

Is this different from MIME? The MIME spec certainly has reached
closure (except for uuencode... :-), and it will do nicely for
this. You just add two headers:

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html

>I'm considering adopting some such standard for the server that we're soon
>going to put on-line, which will contain a comprehensive index to Web
>publishing and Web library information, including HTML-ized mail and Usenet
>articles. I'd like to support some standard way to mark HTML as "example,"
>so that it won't be interpreted by the HTML-izer, but will be converted to
>read as source.

Hmmm... this is tricky. At first, I'd think anything marked text/plain
should be treated as "example." But lots of stuff gets tagged text/plain
when the user really intends for the markup to be treated as markup.

How about something like:

Content-Type: text/plain; look-for-html=no

>I'm even considering -- feel free to argue -- generating an automatic
>e-mail (ONCE per person) to anyone who posts with embedded HTML, advising
>them that their article is in the archive/library as HTML and explaining
>how to mark it as "example" HTML. This would presumably propogate a
>standard to the community rapidly...

If you can do it without pissing anybody off, great! Well, you're
guaranteed to piss somebody off. If you can do it without creating
an anti-HTML or anti-WWW sentiment in the USENET/mail community,
I suppose I'm in favor of this.

-- The SGML/MIME cop