Re: draft-ietf-impp-cpim-msgfmt syntax

Dave Crocker <[email protected]> writes:

> Hence one would have expected MsgFmt either to use a profile of RFC 2822 or
> to use XML.

As I recall, XML was dismissed, at least in part, because of its
requirement that binary data be encoded as characters.  This feature
means that the size of a graphic that is enclosed in the body of a
message would significately increase over its size as a binary object.
For the same reason, it's a minor pain when dealing with digital
signatures and encryption.  Finally, it requires additional resources
while encoding and decoding binary data.

I don't remember why there was no effort to make MsgFmt a profile of
RFC 2822.  I too would like to know why.

John




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]