[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lastest drfat of RFC-XXXX
> 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)