Re: mime vs xml header

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

I tend to echo Bob's analysis and conclusion (just use MIME). It would be
relatively trivial to specify a mapping for MIME2XML and vice-versa based
on Dale's work, and we might want to include it in the spec somewhere.
However, I feel that we should be focusing on available technology.
MIME is already widely implemented on our targetted "transports" (browsers,
web servers, mail client and servers, etc.) Going with a pure XML enveloping
scheme would necessarily involve some level of new development work
to enable this to be supported.

My $0.02.

Cheers,

Chris

Rik Drummond wrote:

> we will be talking about this on the conference call tomorrow..... will you
> be there bob ?  rik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of Miller,
> Robert (GEIS)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 11:29 AM
> To: ebxml-transport
> Subject: RE: mime vs xml header
>
> Seems to me the XML-based envelope proposal would be to emulate MIME.  If
> that's what it is, I say just use MIME.  If the world decides that XML-MIME
> is a good thing, I'd suggest the MIME folks would do the job, or ask that we
> help them do it.  IMO, we shouldn't take the lead on this.
>
> And of course, it costs us nothing to do nothing, and we can revisit the
> decision later if necessary. A no-brainer for me, I vote MIME only.
>
> Cheers,
>        Bob