- From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:08:01 -0800
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, Nick Shelness <shelness@lotus.com>, IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@segate.sunet.se>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
>From Jim Gettys's message Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:55:11 -0800: } }...............................Please see the note I just sent out that }included a discussion of the need HTTP has for "Alternates", which might }or might not be grist for that mill. } - Jim Hi Jim -- I think the term you are thinking of is "alternative" as in Mutipart-alternative, which I believe serves the very same purpose for EMail use of MIME to present the recipient with different alternatives. However, in your case, the "alternates" are not identical content versions with alternative names, but alternative (i.e., different) content versions with distinctive names, as should be the case for different content. MHTML is trying to specifically ponly deal the case of identical content with alternative URIs. Perhaps the header name "Content-alias:" will better convey the meaning and also be a distinctive header that will not be coonfused with other kids of alternatives. Anyway, I really think we should jointly (MHTML+HTTP) sort these issues out before you go to DRAFT, cause after that we can't even make minor changes. I can certainly appreciate your conceren and desire to ush to the finish line for DRAFT status, but it seems to me that the payoff from real INTERWORKABILITY is too great to so easily give it up. Cheers...\Stef
Received on Friday, 16 January 1998 23:05:09 UTC