FW: [JDEV] A piece of MIME?
scott at tranzoa.com
Tue Aug 10 21:59:41 CDT 1999
I apologize, I'll leave our messages private. It's more a setting with the
weirdnesses of my mail client (this seems to be happening often) than be
trying to be impolite.
* Patrick McCuller translated into ASCII [Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 10:30:16PM -0400][<019901bee3a1$727eb960$1b76c897 at scylla>]
> Scott, I tried to help you reshape this idea in private, but if you want to
> take it to the whole jdev list, that's your business. Still, it is generally
> polite to ask permission. What I write to you in email privately I may not
> want shared with the list or whoever. I'm likely to be more candide and less
> formal than I would be if writing for distribution. Now, that said, I do
> understand that whatever I write may get shown to anyone - can't help that.
> But the burden of politeness is on you.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick McCuller [mailto:patrick at kia.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 10:17 PM
> To: Scott Robinson
> Subject: RE: [JDEV] A piece of MIME?
> Importance: High
> > > I don't want to reply to this in detail before I can
> > respond to Jer's documents, but you do realize you're not using MIME,
> don't you? Have you
> > > read the MIME rfcs? Mangling out the type specification into
> > the XML makes it not only NOT MIME, but REALLY FRAGILE as well.
> > >
> > As I stated, it was _very_ rough but gave an idea for what I am
> > aiming for. It needs a _lot_ of work to become a MIME-workalike... however
> > I've weighed the various options on how to use MIME within Jabber and
> "mangling" our
> > specification was the only way I could be slightly happy with. (I'm not
> > anywhere near happy.)
> The very words 'MIME-workalike' should make you stop and think about what
> you're proposing. Remember the three Rs?
> MIMEXML might be a worthy thing. But if you're interested in that, go start
> an IETF BOF. Why hack it up here when there's no need to? Clients will have
> to make some kind of weird kludgey XML-MIME bridge thing, which smacks of
> ugly. It makes it difficult to implement ANY reasonably simple client. That
> alone should stop you.
> > > Please consider just putting the MIME block in the message,
> > not screwing with the message packet protocol itself unless where
> > >
> > Placing a MIME block in the message is a working solution. Let me
> > paste in a paragraph from my essay:
> > Creating an extension "<MIME>" tag, while appealing, has a
> > problem. Placing the MIME'ed text straight into the tag could potentially
> cause conflicts
> > with the XML. While I am probably (hopefully) wrong on this
> > problem, I have yet to see any solutions to the problem if someone places
> > "</message>" within their "jab". This also applies to standard messages.
> One could place a
> > "hack" where all data is BASE64'ed or UUENCODED, but this is ugly in it's
> > own right. Also, this would require including a entire MIME decoding
> > engine when we already have an XML engine. Wouldn't it be nice to use what
> > we already have? Finally, the advantages of "multipart" and forwarding
> > Jabber messages verbatim would be killed. (or at least crippled)
> And if you'd actually read in my note where I mention that Jabber is
> already addressing this problem by using CDATA Sections, you'd know better
> than to try this "</message>" argument with me. What it does is indicate to
> me that you don't bother to read an entire message before replying, which is
> disheartening, to say the least.
> Also see above where I argue that reinventing MIME would be a lousy idea.
> SURE, you've got an XML engine right there. Great. You've also got a socket
> library. Whee.
> Kindly tell me exactly how multipart/ messages would be a problem.
> jdev mailing list
> jdev at jabber.org
More information about the JDev