Re: Another user-visible goal

For those of you who haven't seen it, the following is an illustrative 
example of how muddled these layers have become, and how valiantly 
people are trying to resolve it:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marid-submitter-00.txt

I think this draft is on-target and needed for the current email 
environment.  But it would be nice to imagine a future environment in 
which the envelope and header didn't have to be so muddled.  -- 
Nathaniel

On Jun 4, 2004, at 1:35 PM, Steve Hole wrote:

>
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:52:19 +0100 Rodney Tillotson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Bruce Lilly wrote:
>>
>>> One item that could be improved in next-generation email is better
>>> orthogonality between envelope, header, and body.
>>
>> If you're thinking at that level, you have to go further.
>>
>> 1. Paper mail doesn't have to be the reference model to follow (or
>> to selectively avoid following).
>>
>> 2. The US model for paper mail is not the only one.
>>
>> 3. The words "envelope", "header" and "body" do not contribute to
>> worldwide understanding.
>
> Hmm ...
>
> This was a well thought out and stated argument.   It is potentially
> dangerous to reuse terminology and concepts from a single paper based
> postal model -- for all the reasons stated: limitations in thinking,
> assumption of common context and confusion over reused terms with
> different semantics.
>
> But, you have to start somewhere.   In particular refering to one or 
> more
> existing models is perfectly acceptable as long as we keep the warning
> fully in mind.  Also, any use of terminology in the end system must be
> fully defined to avoid any reuse inconsistency.
>
>> From a philosophical standpoint it would be a good idea to look at 
>> all of
> the available existing models (paper and electronic) and select those
> characteristics that apply, are obviously useful, that work and that 
> have
> strong analogy with the target electronic model.  Specifically, what
> elements of the UK or African or whatever model would make sense in the
> electronic model?
>
> I think the original message in the thread did a pretty good job of 
> doing
> that for the North American model.   It would be interesting to see 
> what
> elements from other models could be incorporated that provide better, 
> new
> or different functionality.   Because we do need to provide labels for 
> the
> concepts, is there an alternative to "envelope" that is better?   It 
> is an
> english word with quite a specific meaning.   Perhaps "package"?
>
> Cheers.
>
> ---
> Steve Hole
> Chief Technical Officer - Electronic Billing and Payment Systems
> ACI Worldwide
>
> Email: [email protected]
> Phone: 780 424 4922
>
>
>
>