Re: Issues remaining in Section 6

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 28 1999 - 03:37:28 CDT


In <Pine.LNX.4.10.9910272211500.25815-100000@slip-32-100-243-21.ma.us.prserv.net> greg andruk <meowing@banet.net> writes:

>On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Charles Lindsey wrote:

>> "Reading agents SHOULD honour any Content-Disposition header that is
>> provided (in particular, they SHOULD display any part of a multipart for
>> which the disposition is "inline", possibly distinguished from adjacent
>> parts by some suitable separator). In the absence of such a header, the
>> body of an article or any part of a multipart with Content-Type "text"
>> SHOULD be displayed inline.

>I'd maybe want to see this to spell out which flavors of multipart should
>be treated this way. The above default ought to work for /mixed and
>/related, but not for those darned /alternative thingies.

I think the issues are orthogonal. The new paragraph tells you how you
ought to display whatever has been offered for display (various parts of
some multipart/mixed). The discouragement of multipart/alternative is
covered in a separate paragraph further down.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.