Re: RFC 934 for multipart encoding

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Nathaniel for your careful evaluation and anlysis.

Is it also true as you see it, that this is as recursive as RFC934, so
that body pasts can be defined to exist inside bodyparts if someone
wants to do so?  

Or is it more the case that each defined bodypart must deal with this
issue internal to its own definition?  I suspect this latter is more
correct.

Can I assume that we might define a body part for each of the
character sets that have been declared to be "vital" that we must find
a way to carry (e,g,. 10646, 8859-N, IA5, T61, ...), and for BINARY.

I expect we should also define one for each X.400 defined BodyPart,
and make provision to handle ASN.1 objects as ASN.1 BodyParts which
use ISO Object Identifiers to secify the content types.  What is the
right way to do this?

I have added Steve Kille to the TO of this message to call his
attention to the need for his chop in terms of meeting the requiremnts
of RFC1148++.

It seems to me that if we can do all this mapping, then we will have
really done comething truly important toward moving the whole global
situation toward a multi-media future, without breaking what we have.

Best...\Stef