[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MIME encapsulation of multipart responses
John Stracke wrote:
> Doug Royer wrote:
> >John Stracke wrote:
> >>Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>In any case I think we all seem to agree that multipart support is
> >>>necessary (if not implicitly mandated),
> >>No, we do not. The thread you cite was an related to iMIP, which
> >>inherits MUA-based requirements from MIME. It does *not* mean that
> >>every iCalendar-based application must support multipart.
> >Nor did Bruce say it was mandated. There are implementations
> >that use multipart - we can not just decide they have to break.
> They use multipart for iMIP. An iMIP message will never be presented
> directly to a CAP CS.
Why not? Its a valid iCalendar object.
> Instead, an MUA will accept the multipart,
> extract the text/calendar body part, and submit it to the CS via CAP.
Why? They are valid iCalendar objects.
adr:;;1795 W. Broadway #266;Idaho Falls;Idaho;83402;U.S.A.
title:Chief Executive Manager