RE: More on merged drafts.

[Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Ned Freed wrote:

> >If this message makes you think I haven't reached any sort of conclusion as
> >to
> >which approach is better, well, you're right, I haven't. I see advantages to
> >using MIME syntax and advantages to using the extant vCalendar syntax. Right
> >now I'm leaning towards using the vCalendar mechanism for encapsulating
> >multiple events inside of a single MIME object, but then using
> >multipart/related to carry the various MIME materials used by the vCalendar
> >entries rather than embedding these materials in the entries themselves.

> The VALUE=<some content id> notation is intended to allow "big"
> values to be placed in their own MIME parts. (It's mentioned in
> http://www.imc.org/draft-ietf-calsch-csct section 3.1.3.9 "Value
> Location".) This syntax originally came from vCard where it was deemed
> likely that photos and sound bites would be processible by MIME
> clients long before vCard itself.

I'm aware of the ability in both vCalendar and vCard. However, my concern is
that implementors will use inclusion for MIME object when they should be using
references, making those values inaccessible to MIME-capable agents that don't
also understand vCard or vCalendar formats.

				Ned