RE: MSGFMT

I think all of the options that have been discussed (pure rfc2822, MSGFMT,
822/XML) are probably deployable, interoperable and usable enough. The
differences in these respects are, comparatively speaking, minor.

There are more likely to be deployed and interoperating implementations of
parsers for pre-existing syntaxes, as you've pointed out. For me, that tends
to argue for using an rfc2822 profile, rather than something new. Usability
is a harder property to gauge, but I think any of these formats meet the
modest needs for metadata of the instant messaging application. Given how
simple and unstructured this metadata is, XML might be overkill - there
isn't any obvious need for embedding data in hierarchical structures,
applying security properties differently to different portions of the data,
rendering different representations of the data, or other requirements that
often motivate the use of XML (all of which are, I think, more plausible as
requirements for PIDF).

One more note about existing services inline below.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:02 AM
> To: [email protected]; Peterson, Jon
> Cc: 'Graham Klyne'; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: MSGFMT
> 
[snip]
> 
> (interoperability and deployability have been ignored entirely. concern
> about interconnecting with existing services has mostly been ignored,
except
> for stray comments with the basic view that we don't care enough to pay
> attention to it.)
> 

In so far as interoperability entails interoperating with existing services
- surely that is a Heterogenous Master issue... in this thread we're
discussing MSGFMT, under the auspices of the Homogenous Master. I don't
think that interoperating with existing services is a concern for MSGFMT,
right?

> d/
> -- 
>  Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email protected]>
>  TribalWise <http://www.tribalwise.com>
>  t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
> 



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