- From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:03:58 -0500
On 4/16/07, Jon Barnett <jonbarnett at gmail.com> wrote: > > RFC 2557 was mentioned in the last thread. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557 > > After reading it in detail (and indeed writing a script to send HTML with > inline images as attachments), I quite like it. It's simple and obvious > enough and allows for a fallback to a real internet URL if a corresponding > URL exists. > > The main gripe about it was that binary data is base64 encoded, which adds > size to the file in the end. > > A couple benefits to MHTML over ZIP are that HTTP headers are preserved > and that the Content-Location header can directly associate a resource with > it's Internet-hosted version, removing the need to change all the URLs > (absolute or relative) in a document (and related documents, such as CSS > files) to make it usable offline. > > zipping the final MHTML file could help with size. > > Considering that there's already a standard, the trick is getting browsers > to support it. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHTML > > That pages tells a lot about what can save as MHTML but not enough about > what can open and read MHTML. > -- Jon Barnett -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070416/3e6db36b/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 15:03:58 UTC