Subject: Re: [lemonade] catenate-04 submitted

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:19:15 -0800

At 9:01 PM -0600 2/16/05, Pete Resnick wrote:

>  It does no data conversion (e.g. MIME transfer encodings)

Does this imply that for binary content, the client inserts a C-T-E 
header of binary, and assumes the Submit server can use the 
BINARYMINE extension or add an encoding if needed?
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Some days you feel like Schrodinger's cat.   --M. S. Hutchenreuther

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 20:32:47 +0000

Randall Gellens wrote:

> header of binary, and assumes the Submit server can use the BINARYMINE 
> extension or add an encoding if needed?

Correct. So when the client CATENATEs, it needs to know if the 
submission server supports BINARYMIME. Or the client can always play 
safe and just encode it.

Hmm, there is no way to change encoding during CATENATE (?).

Alexey

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:46:41 -0800

At 8:32 PM +0000 3/9/05, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

>>  Does this imply that for binary content, the client inserts a 
>> C-T-E header of binary, and assumes the Submit server can use the 
> submission server supports BINARYMIME.

We may need to require BINARYMIME as part of lemonade.

>   Or the client can always play safe and just encode it.

How can the client do this without downloading the data, encoding it, 
then uploading it?

-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
> This is not to say that programming in, say, C++ takes a
> super human effort.  What I mean is that it makes sense to
> develop tools that lessen the effort and increase the chance
> for success.  C was a step in that direction....

First there was ALGOL... this was a big step in the right
direction, then CPL which was supposed to be practical ALGOL,
was a slight step backwards.  BCPL which was Basic CPL was
another step backwards.  Then came B, a big step backwards (it
took the Basic and dropped the CPL), and C was a small step
forwards over this.  I think in all this C had by the time it
came around lost the plot.

The plot that it really found, which was more by accident than
intention was cross platform development, but that would have
been in ALGOL anyway.  C did not prove that OSs could be
written in HLLs: that belonged already to ALGOL on the B5000
(~1964), and this OS survives today as still much better,
fully featured and robust than Unix or any other OS for that
matter.

As C.A.R Hoare said, Algol was a great improvement on most of
its successors.

  --from Usenet post by Ian Joyner,
    <http://www.mri.mq.edu.au/people/ian.html>