on 9/3/2002 12:49 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> ACE technology is the same as used for MIME. Is MIME a transitional > strategy? ACE is not the same as MIME. I have avoided making this argument because the comparison is useful for introductory purposes, but there are subtle yet strong differences at lower levels which keep them from being mirrors. Specifically, end-nodes typically extract data from MIME and use it within the local context of that application *ONLY*. The encoded data is RARELY used inside of other applications, and the extracted data is typically used for this purpose, when needed. On the other hand, domain names are frequently cross-populated among applications, and as the argument regarding clipboards shows, the encoded form will be the norm. If all Internet applications had to support the MIME encoding formats for all of their data -- FTP offering quoted-printable as a transfer type -- then it would be equal to IDNA. Furthermore, MIME and its constituent application protocols are being extended so that binary data *CAN* be transferred without being encoded first. Think about why this is so, and then ask yourself if the ability to transfer i18n domain names in binary form would also not be desirable, for the same kinds of reasons. As far as that goes, an argument for MIME equality is an argument in favor of an unencoded transfer mode. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
