Re: taxonomies

At 3:37 PM -0500 2/6/04, Martin Duerst wrote:
>At 09:03 04/02/06 -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>
>>Set C:
>>+ mixed parts
>>   : marked for human consumption
>>   : marked for machine consumption
>
>I think this is the simplest way to express things.
>But I would like to see many more requirements/examples for
>interesting applications, interesting message content,...
>so that we get a better idea of what we need in terms
>of generic capabilities for message formats, and requirements
>on the underlying transport, as well as hopefully some new
>and exciting functionality for the users that will make it
>worthwhile switching to the new system.

Partially agree. Fully agree on "would like to see many more 
requirements/examples for interesting applications, interesting 
message content,..." Disagree on "and requirements on the underlying 
transport".

>>Currently, I like Set C the best because it seems that something 
>>that can read the body can read the markings and decide what to do 
>>with it.
>
>One thing I'm not clear about is whether it is possible to make
>a strict distinction between human consumption and machine
>consumption.

I'm quite sure we cannot. A better question is, given that we cannot, 
what can we do to help both people and machines to know what to do 
when presented with a mail message.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium