At 20.39 +0200 98-06-10, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> I have seen no comments of any kind on the INFO draft.  Should we
> assume that the implemntors do not find it useful, or that they have
> read it all and are past the need for it, and that they have no new
> comments to aid other implementors with whatever tricky stuff needs to
> be exposed to promote "Content Interoperability" which is what we are
> attempting to make happen.

At least several major implementations (Microsoft Explorer,
Netscape and Eudora) have implemented multipart/alternative
with a plain text and a html alternative as suggested in
the info draft. But this need of course not mean that they
have read the document.

I am quite sure there are issues to discuss in the informational
draft, i.e. that there are controversial recommendations in it.
Certain things which initially were in the standard, and which
were removed because they were controversial, have been moved
to the informational document, and they might be controversial
also in that document.

Should I write a list of what I believe are the most controversial
points in the INFO document?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <[log in to unmask]> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme
Between 26-31 June use phone No. +46-8-664 77 48 not +46-8-16 16 67