[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MIME encapsulation of multipart responses
> Look at the issues we have now in iMIP w/multipart support. Some CUAs
> don't support it at all (ie: no ATTACHments, etc) Some CUAs take one
> approach that may be contrary to the multipart semantics. Some CUAs
> take a 'hybrid' approach to multipart in order to be 'richer' and to
> support workflow w/the other CUAs. Its a big hodgepodge that makes
> interop testing less that seamless. As a big user of C&S I really
> like seamless. Maybe its just me and most users want to have lots of
> limitations or hoops to jump thru.... Do we want to go thru this
> exact same morass with CAP as CAP clients start to develop??
We went through this debate before. (Yes with iMIP, because
iMIP was the only transport). We do not have to mandate that
all CUAs and CSs ->generate<- multipart.
Currently we allow a status reply to indicate that a CS can
not support recurrence rules. Do we want to add one that
says - sorry, I threw away your attachments?
adr:;;1795 W. Broadway #266;Idaho Falls;Idaho;83402;U.S.A.
title:Chief Executive Manager