The problem is that HTML is not compatible with email. This is why I created the Markup Language .
HTML was created to work with the HTTP protocol, because these two technologies were invented by the same person at about the same time. The difference is that HTTP is a single session that is transmitted in a single motion from server to client. This never changes since the HTML document always appears on the server, is sent to the requesting client, and as soon as the transfer is completed, the connection between the client and server is dropped.
Email does not behave this way. In an e-mail message appears at the client, is sent to one or more mail services, and then ends on the remote client. However, the biggest difference is that the document does not die with the end of one instance of the transfer, as happens with the transfer of the document over HTTP. A document sent to SMTP can be sent, sent, or copied to several unsolicited users. This one of the differences is profound when it comes to email flow.
The problem is that SMTP and HTTP are different, as shown in the previous two paragraphs. These differences are compounded by the fact that SMTP and HTTP have radically different formatting methods for creating header data. HTML has header data that is designed to be compatible with HTTP transmission headers and does not comply with SMTP protocols. HTML headers also do not account for email flow complexity.
The problem is that when the email software distorts the HTML document to add formatting changes necessary to meet the relevant requirements of that software, and also to write the header data directly into the document. This example becomes extremely pronounced when an HTML email becomes an email flow. Because the HTML header data does not have a way to account for the complexity of the email flow, there is no way to provide appropriate definitions for descriptions from the stylesheet that survive the transmission of the document. Each time an HTML or HTML formatted document is sent from one email program to another, the document is corrupted and each email software distorts the previous corruption. Email processing software can link to either an email client, which will certainly damage the document, or an email server, which is likely to corrupt the email document.
The solution is to create a markup language agreement that directly recognizes the requirements for email header data. These requirements are defined in RFC 5321 for SMTP and RFC 5322 for client processing. The only way to properly distribute this solution to account for the complexity of email flow is to provide an agreement for the multidimensional DOM agent.
The paragraphs have been deleted due to technical inaccuracy and the difference between the term multi-agent DOM and the nature of the invented function, not mentioned here even before editing.
EDIT: The multi-agent DOM applies some degree of hierarchy that might not be required to represent email flow.
austin cheney
source share