Re: Proposal for Miffy MIME Headers

Anish Karamarker writes:

> By that, you mean that receiver/decoder/reconstructor
> must not require the presence of such headers, but if
> they are present then they may have to be taken into
> account. Right?

> Specifically, I am thinking of 
> content-transfer-encoding.

Well, I'm not sure.  The only way we get legal MIME parts into a Miffy 
document is if they are encoded in the way our specification mandates. The 
responsibility of any Miffy "interpreter" is to understand that 
representation, whether or not content-transfer-encoding is specified.  I 
certainly agree that if specified the content-transfer-encoding must not 
lie, and I think it might be of use to generalized non-Miffy-aware tools. 
I'm not sure I see how its presence would affect the processing that would 
otherwise be done by a Miffy interpreter.

I think this may boil down to reconfirming that Miffy offers no 
optionality in the encoding used, regardless of whether the header is 
present.  Agreed?  Thanks.

BTW:  I think the term "interpreter" is somewhat confusing, but that's 
what the current Miffy draft calls it.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------