[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:28:38 +0900

Eric Schulte writes:

 > To contribute to the bikeshedding [1],

No discussion of MIME can reasonably be characterized as bikeshedding.
There's another kind of discussion that can be abbreviated to BS
that's often an appropriate description, but not bikeshedding.

You see, in Parkinson's original fable, the bikeshed is something
everybody has knowledge of, and therefore was competent to offer
comment.  But the litmus test for being competent to discuss MIME (or
any mail RFC, for that matter) is the sinking feeling that you're
beyond your depth.  And even if you feel that way, you still might not
qualify! ;-)

 > I've composed an example email in gnus with inline Org-mode-syntax
 > code, inline mime-annotated code, and attached (disposition=inline)
 > code.  The results as displayed by gnus, gmail and gmx are shown
 > [2].  I don't know if gnus should limit itself based on the
 > limitations of non-standards-compliant commercial software,

No, at least in this case Gmail and gmx are behaving conformantly;
there is no requirement that an MUA implement any kind of behavior for
the "application" content type, except providing a way to save the
media to a file.  Which they did.

Gnus is not incorrect, but it *is* behaving non-portably by providing
a display method for the rare and non-portable (and probably
unregistered) MIME type "application/emacs-lisp".

Use "Content-Type: text/emacs-lisp" and see what happens.

 > but at the least it would seem that while the mime approach /should/ be
 > the most portable it will in fact not be portable to many (maybe most)
 > other MUAs.

The MIME *approach* probably *is* portable; you didn't test it.

The MIME *type* application/emacs-lisp is *non*-portable.  That's
exactly what the "application" type is for.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]