C-T-E compression

["Al Costanzo" <al@xxxxxxx>]

>I tend to agree with Steve on this.  I've long thought that compressed
>C-T-E might be useful, but I feel like events have undermined this
>suspicion.  Text is generally too small to be not worth the bother of
>compressing (nor the bother of phasing in a new C-T-E), and larger media
>generally have built-in compression.  So my guess at this point is that
>phasing in this new C-T-E would be a huge amount of effort for a very
>small efficiency gain.

What do you consider huge effort?

I have tested LZJU90 with media objects that have some built-in compression.

LZJU90 does a better job than a base64 or a uuencoded object -but- again
that is not the major thrust of LZJU90.... Future work is based on the
communities acceptance or rejection of this tranfer encoding....
>
>Having said that, extending mailcap-like mechanisms to advertise
>recipient capabilities is more generally useful, and if it were
>*already* in place, phasing in the new C-T-E would be a lot less
>painful.  So I'd suggest focusing on the extension mechanisms first and
>then, if still desired, *using* them for the new C-T-E deployment.  --
>Nathaniel


It would sadden me if mailcap work interfered/delayed introduction of this
transfer encoding or others into MIME.

Accept it / reject it on its own merit not because mailcap functionality is
not where you want it to be -yet-

Only my humle little opinion...

-AL