- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:14:43 +0100
2007/3/21, Nicholas Shanks: > On 17 Mar 2007, at 23:28, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > > > I think that in most cases will be better if we could package > > complex pages into zip envelopes and deliver them in the whole. > > That would be real solution of "jumps". And <img width=... > > height=...> is a palliative. > > I have an open bug with Safari requesting support for the multipart/ > mixed Content-Type. This would provide the "ziped" content you > request (and you can use a Transfer-Encoding to compress it before > sending) In this particular case, multipart/related would be more appropriate. See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHTML If you talked about serving the images in a multipart/* envelope, multipart/alternate is more appropriate than multipart/mixed. But, hey, RFC2046 states (?5.1.3) that ? Any "multipart" subtypes that an implementation does not recognize must be treated as being of subtype "mixed" ?, so in terms of client implementations, supporting multipart/mixed might be enough. -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 01:14:43 UTC