Re: MIME's 'Content-Disposition' Header

["Roger Fajman" <RAF@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > > 3.6  Content-Disposition and the Main Message
> > >
> > >     It is permissible to use Content-Disposition on the main body
> > >     of an [RFC 822] message.  Althouth the meanings of the two
> > >     current dispositions (`inline' and `attachment') are
> > >     respectively vacuous and undefined, it is anticipated that
> > >     future dispositions might be more amenable for use with main
> > >     messages (one might imagine a "print" disposition to
> > >     implement a print-by-mail service, for example).
>
> > A disposition of attachment with a main body makes sense to me.
> > Suppose the main body is a binary data file of some sort.  It would
> > make sense not to automatically display it to the user.
>
> > Both inline and attachment make sense with the main body if a file name
> > is specified.
>
> But in both of these cases you are not labelling the main body -- there isn't
> one! You are just labelling the one and only object that the message happens to
> contain, and that becomes the "main body" only by virtue of being the *only*
> body.
>
> Main body here refers to the (usually initial) part that contains purely
> descriptive material. The current dispositions really don't make sense in this
> context -- such material is inherently inline and not an attachment of any
> sort.
>
>                                Ned

OK, I see what you are saying.  I was thinking of a message consisting of
only a single part.  Perhaps some clarification in the text might prevent
others from falling into the same trap.