Re: DIME Use Case?

Hi Patrik,

PF> And I don't agree DIME is simpler than a profile of MIME. I
PF> have so far not seen any explanation what is meant by
PF> "simpler". Just the claim.

It would be interesting (and a monumental waste of time) to
see what it would take in terms of time to build from scratch
a spec compliant implementation of DIME and MIME in a language
like Java (on JVM) or C# (on CLR).

MIME at the moment has a tremendous advantage in that it is
widely implemented, but I can remember a time not too long ago
when it was an absolute mongrel to get any data transfered
as a mail attachment.

----------------------------------------
- Mitch Denny
- [email protected]
- +61 (414) 610-141
-

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of DIME technology [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m
Sent: Monday, 15 April 2002 14:26
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DIME] DIME Use Case?


--On 2002-04-14 13.53 -0700 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
<[email protected]>
wrote:

>> MIME is created for the same thing DIME is.
>
> Nope, DIME is explicitly not designed to be an open-ended description=20
> format. You can profile MIME as much as you like, it is still an=20
> open-ended description format and very successful at that.

No.

> It is
> absolutely not the intent of DIME to change the usage of MIME at all=20
> but rather to provide a simple wrapper.

And I don't agree DIME is simpler than a profile of MIME. I have so far
not seen any explanation what is meant by "simpler". Just the claim.

   paf