Re: multipart/alternative extension

• From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
• Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:49:48 -0400
• 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>
• Message-Id: <200105071949.PAA23498@astro.cs.utk.edu>

> >With multipart/choices there is still potential for information loss,
> >because some clients fail to follow the specs regarding treatment
> >of multipart/unknown.
> 
> I've never known any implementation that actually throws away pieces
> of a multipart/unknown. But even if there were such a beast, one or
> two occurrences of actively broken software would not prevent any
> server from trying to send multipart/unknown when the vast majority
> of clients out there deal perfectly reasonably with it as
> multipart/mixed.

perhaps.  but it seems that we're starting to argue about which kind 
of brokenness is more widespread - brokenness on handling multipart/
alternative vs. broken on handling multipart/foo.  historically
these kinds of arguments have been difficult for IETF to evaluate.

Keith

Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 15:50:33 UTC