On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Skip Montanaro wrote: > Responding to an early item in this thread and trying to adapt to later > items... > > Ping wrote: > > I'm not convinced "mime" needs a separate branch here. (This is the > deepest part of the tree, and at three levels small alarm bells went off > in my head.) > > It's not clear that mime should be beneath text/mail. Moshe moved it up a > level, Actually, Ping moved it up a level. I only decided to agree with him retroactively... > I think the mime stuff still > belongs in a separate mime package. I wouldn't just sprinkle the modules > under text. I see two possibilities: > > text>mime > net>mime > > I prefer net>mime, I don't. MIME is not a "wire protocol" like all the other things in net -- it's used inside another wire protocol, like RFC822 or HTTP. If at all, I'd go for having a net/ mail/ mime/ Package, but Ping would yell at me again for nesting 3 levels. I could live with text/mime, because the mime format basically *is* text. -- Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>. http://www.oreilly.com/news/prescod_0300.html http://www.linux.org.il -- we put the penguin in .com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4