Re: Lastest drfat of RFC-XXXX

[kankkune@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Risto Kankkunen)]

> I proposed a change to the meaning of encoding "none".  For the
> current 7 bit system and proposal, the message content-encoding "none"
> means 7-bit ascii. Instead "none" should mean native format, either 7
> bit, 8 bit, or binary.

> The the first content-type field for a multi-part document is
> "multipart". This keyword indicates that the document as a whole obeys
> the rules defining multi-part messages.  In a parallel line, is it
> reasonable to infer that a content-encoding line in the message header
> applies to the message as a whole?  I did not see this in the
> document, but this is just an extension of the single-bodypart case.

I have been assuming this is the case. I don't think denying the use of
encoding header with content-type multipart would simplify the programs
in any way. But whether or not encoding is allowed, it should be made
more explicit in the RFC to avoid misinterpretations.


-- 
 Risto Kankkunen                   kankkune@cs.Helsinki.FI (Internet)
 Department of Computer Science    kankkunen@finuh          (Bitnet)
 University of Helsinki, Finland   ..!mcsun!uhecs!kankkune   (UUCP)