On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Arguments: > > comex "submitted a fragment" indicating, in words and by envelope > information, that it should be translated as an image (a .png image). But > it appeared in the archives as a body of text.
Gratuitous: Almost all email clients support this format; the archive, which does not, is not mentioned in the ruleset. True, it is encoded as a body of text, but bodies of text are encoded as series of numeric bytes, and bytes are encoded with bits, and so on... and without an actual requirement in the ruleset that messages be plain text, I don't see why my image is not acceptable. In fact, I'd say that I have the R101 right to post any type of content I want to the fora, within reasonable limits such as size. > and there is (arguably?) > sufficient information in the report to display it in multiple ways, > including as text. Has G. represented the fragment adequately to have it > be considered an accurate report of the fragment? FWIW, I believe that it would be represented adequately (albeit inconveniently) if you indicated that the message should be decoded as a PNG in the same way that the original message did, whether or not the actual fragment is text or an image. However, your report seemed to imply that the fragment was gibberish.
