On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 07:22:23PM -0400, Lorenzo Taylor wrote: > Wow! I really like the XML approach. But how are you going to get all the > email programs in the world to use it? It seems too late to make such a smart > new approach to email a standard now as old as email is. Then again, if HTML > email is accepted in so many circles, (not here but ...) why not XML email > everywhere? It's a much better approach than anything that has been thought > up > thus far.
It would have to be a voluntary type standard. The Unix
flat-file standard is pretty played out, I'd say.
Interesting local-file formats use clever databases and so
forth to make virtual folders work. It seems like we should
have moved past the flat-file format years ago.
I've had similar ideas recently about using XML for conf
files in /etc, but that would take a bit of elaboration.
I'll save that for another time.
> <body>
> <quote>
> I think you are an email junky.
> </quote>
> <response>
> No I'm not! I have attached the reason why not.
> </response>
Incidentally, this would response to the other fellow who
asked how to extend the XML format to interspersing quotes
with responses. You could even do something like
<body>
<quote messageID="foo">
Some stuff
</quote>
<quote messageID="bar">
Some stuff from another message
</quote>
<reply>
Some stuff that I wrote about:
<quote messageID="aThirdMessageID">
Some tripe
</quote>
</body>
--
Stephen R. Laniel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+(617) 308-5571
http://laniels.org/
PGP key: http://laniels.org/slaniel.key
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
