W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > May 2001

Re: multipart/alternative extension

From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 14:53:32 -0400
Message-Id: <200105071853.OAA22876@astro.cs.utk.edu>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, pkyone@netreon.com, Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, IETF Applications Area general discussion list <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
> >  > If IETF says that multipart/alternative should be used, such
> >>  a server will still not use it, since using multipart/alternative
> >>  will cause many recipients to only get one of the translations,
> >>  not adapted to their language capabilities.
> >
> >The same is true if you use either multipart/mixed or multipart/choices.
> 
> No. Please re-read Jacob's message. It is acceptable to use either
> /mixed or /choices because you won't *lose* information in any
> clients. With /alternative, there is information loss in some
> clients, which the servers in question are unwilling to risk.

With multipart/choices there is still potential for information loss, 
because some clients fail to follow the specs regarding treatment
of multipart/unknown.

Even with multipart/mixed, if the desired content is presented as an 
attachment, this can effectively cause information loss if the recipient
doesn't understand that the version he/she understands is in that 
attachment, and/or he/she doesn't know how to read that attachment.

Keith
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 14:54:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:11:28 GMT