LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for MHTML Archives

MHTML Archives

MHTML Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave MHTML
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives

Subject: Re: Summary of decisions at the Montreal MHTML IETF meeting
From: Einar Stefferud <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:[log in to unmask]
Date:Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:36:46 -0700

text/plain (62 lines)

HI Martin -- Thanks for your comments.  I tend to agree with you, and
I am not happy yet with the text that I saw in the lastest draft of
the next DRAFT, so we need to continue workng on it.  Do not give up
too easly;-)...  We really need to get this right.

On the brighter side, Dave Croicker has agreed to take up an effort to
sort this out in general for all of RFC822 and MIME, sicne the same
issue has come up with worse consequences in the application/direcory
work of the ASIS WG.  We need a sepqarate free standing RFC document
that properly explains this issue.  Don't know if it shoudl be a
standard, or just informational, or a BCP.  We shall see;-)...

Regarding the plans for progressing all this to Proposed Standard...

We are attempting as I write to get out the results of Montreal as a
set of new Internet-drafts in preparation to make our WG Last Call.
The object of this is to press for early closure by not letting people
think we nopw have till December to complete the progression.  We
really need (and want) to get it out before December.

After we close the WG last call, we then make an IETF last call of N
weeks.  We will give early warning of the impending IETF Last Call by
sending a copy of the WG Notice of last call to the IETF Announce list
to let people knwo that the WG last call is underway on the mailing


From Martin J Duerst's message Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:31:54 +0200 (MET DST):
}>Here is a summary of the decisions at the Montreal meeting of the MHTML
}>Other decisions at the Montreal meeting were
}>-  a more clear description of the relation between MIME encodings and
}>   HTML mappings of non-us-ascii characters.
}This is the second-best decision (the best would have been to leave
}this out, as many commentors on the net have explained how it is
}Have any more specific things in this area been discussed or decided
}upon? Can a draft for the rewording of the affected section(s) be
}published in this group before going to last call, to assure that we
}really have a text that is sound under all aspects?
}The suggested wording of Jacob Palme on Sat. June 22 is a step
}forward, but it is still not very appropriate. In particular, in the
}drawing and in the text, the distinction between the MIME
}"charset" parameter (used to denote a way of mapping characters
}to octets) and the 8->7bit mappings (CP, BASE64) is not made.
}Everything is lumped under the term MIME layer, but when
}reading the text, one gets the impression that by this "MIME
}layer" mainly the Content-Transfer-Encoding is meant, and
}that the MIME "charset" parameter, very important because
}it is different by default for mail and http, and also because
}it is used very much in an international context, is largely
}Regards,        Martin.

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main MHTML Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager