- From: Chris Newman <cnewman@iplanet.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:58:42 -0700
- To: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
- Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
--On Thursday, May 3, 2001 23:06 -0700 ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: > Given that the text in RFC 1766 about this approach has been dropped in > RFC 3066 due to lack of interest on the part of implementors, I see no > chance of adding it to MIME itself during a move from draft to full > standard. I concur. However, I think the text in RFC 2046 could be clarified to reflect field experience with multipart/alternative better. It's certainly helpful in practice for a multipart/alternative viewer to give the user the option to view the different alternatives. Indeed, I frequently prefer the plain text 1st part to ransom-letter HTML in the 2nd part. The bottom line is that a user's preference doesn't necessarily align with the order selected by the originating software. - Chris
Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 14:00:08 UTC