Re: Low-hanging fruit: multipart/alternative

[Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 13, 2004, at 7:18 PM, Mark Pilgrim wrote:

> > Actually, I thought we'd nuked the whole notion of
> > multiple-alternative-representations-of-the-entry, so the idea would 
> > be
> > to just lose multipart/alternative.  But it's possible I have the 
> > wrong
> > recollection... -Tim
> Well, I wasn't at that face-to-face meeting, and I don't recall us
> discussing it on-list.  I wouldn't call it "low-hanging" to nuke it
> permanently.

Good enough, we were pretty solid in the room but that was the room and 
this is the mailing list, which is official, it isn't low-hanging if 
there's discomfort, so MNot, if you'd already nuked that, you'd better 
de-nuke.   Could someone take ownership of writing a three-line Pace 
saying

"Nuke multipart/alternative for substantial cost and lack of a 
compelling use-case."

Thanks in advance. -Tim

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature