On 10/16/06, Mica Mijatovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RFCs are not any "standards" nor they are by (their own) definition supposed to be. They are just collection of less or more recommended routines, and often also nothing but the lists of (most usual/mass) _habits_.
Many RFCs *are* standards. Those that are not are identified as "informational". Even the IETF thinks so, identifying them as the basis for "the Internet Standards Process". See: http://www.ietf.org/IETF-Standards-Process.html The only reason you can read this message is because RFC 2822 is universally recognized as the *standard* protocol for email.
In order to define a _real_ standards, quite another criterions are needed, created after essential _sense_ of a given act/procedure. In this sense HTML definitely does not satisfy elementary needs to be included in a crypto scheme (due to the very HTML's technical characteristics).
This statement makes no sense to me. Surely you are not suggesting that HTML is incompatible with cryptography? That's like saying apples are incompatible with cooking. Not only is it untrue, but you're not even really comparing similar entities.
Of course that it doesn't mean that HTML should be banished completely from the 'lectronic mail world, but it has its essential limitations as for the cryptographic routines.
Again I must state that one has little to do with the other. MHTML's MIME format may not play nice with PGP/MIME's encapsultation format, but it didn't *have* to be that way. S/MIME, for example, seems to make provisions for playing nicely with other MIME structures such as MHTML, as well as arbitrary attachments. -- RPM ========================= All problems can be solved by diplomacy, but violence and treachery are equally effective, and more fun. -Anonymous _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users