Re: MIME encapsulation of multipart responses

[Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.

begin:vcard 
n:Royer;Doug
tel;pager:pager@xxxxxxxxx
tel;cell:208-520-4044
tel;fax:866-594-8574
tel;work:866-594-8574
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://Royer.com/People/Doug
org:http://INET-Consulting.com
adr:;;1795 W. Broadway #266;Idaho Falls;Idaho;83402;U.S.A.
version:2.1
email;internet:Doug@xxxxxxxxx
title:Chief Executive Manager
x-mozilla-cpt:;12704
fn:Doug Royer
end:vcard