From: ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} (n9505834@garbo.nepean.uws.edu.au)
Date: Mon Jul 27 1998 - 23:41:23 CDT
On Sat, 18 Jul 1998, Brad Templeton wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 01:03:01AM -0400, John Moreno wrote:
[...]
> > I view any such addition to the body as totally unacceptable. The only
> > possible justification for putting something in the body is because it
> > is intended to be read by a human - *anything* which is intended to be
> > read either exclusively or primarily by software belongs in the headers.
> >
> All MIME multiparts put things in the "body" per se, so you are a bit late
> with this complaint.
It is a basic compaint about the nature of mime.
> The original spec defined only plain text. But MIME got introduced many
> years ago, and newsreaders used it in spite of their being no USENET
> spec per se.
The only place I've seen MIME used advanagiously is in the binaries
newsgroups (I would guess that it is alos used well in international
hyrakies as well).
> The time to demand that the oldest pre-mime newsreaders have
> a pretty article has to end eventually
Usenet has always tried to respect thouse that are unable to make use of
the most advanced systems. I can see there is no good reson to go back on
this treadion.
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia; see the url. Support NoCeM
http://www.cit.nepean.uws.edu.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument