Re: content-type and name parameter

Francesco Gennai wrote:

> P.s.: technically speaking, I would avoid the name "attachment", because I 
> think that we should speak simply of MIME parts, but I noticed that some 
> RFC (after the MIME ones) refers to the word "attachment" to indicate a 
> message part.

this is going off topic, but i'm glad someone brings this up. I agree w.r.t.
IETF documents, while you can't control the language used by end users.
And as you said, even mail related RFCs (e.g. 2060) have been using this term
for years, with no or only a fuzzy definition.

> Should be such RFC amended ? Should the RFC editors pay more attention
> on such terminology ? 

Not sure who exactly who should be the guard here, but it's a problem withh the
review and sometimes with different communities using different "language".
With so many drafts to review, these alleged nitpicking issues tend to fall
apart. There are other examples, e.g. "DNS" being falsely expanded to
Domain Name Service. Next time you see this kind of wording in a draft,
try to convince the author/editor.
To be continued on rfc-interest ...

-Peter