[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Low-hanging fruit: multipart/alternative

To: Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Low-hanging fruit: multipart/alternative
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:42:46 -0700
Cc: Atomlist Syntax <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx

+1

On Jul 13, 2004, at 3:11 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

I don't think we have consensus on what we're replacing it with, but I think that we do have consensus that the description of multipart/alternative in 4.13.10 in draft-format-00 should go. This was my take-way from the Atom Community meeting back in June -Tim


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

References:
- Low-hanging fruit: multipart/alternative
  - From: Tim Bray

Prev by Date: low-hanging fruit: process
Next by Date: Re: Low-hanging fruit: compulsory namespaces
Previous by thread: Low-hanging fruit: multipart/alternative
Next by thread: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-atompub-format-00
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread