- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 14:53:32 -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>
> > > 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 UTC