Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related

Ed Levinson (elevinso@Accurate.COM)
Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:28:14 -0500


Message-Id: <9511221528.AA07885@Accurate.COM>
To: asg@severn.wash.inmet.com (Al Gilman)
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore), jpalme@dsv.su.se, elevinso@Accurate.COM,
Subject: Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Nov 1995 15:52:40 EST."
             <9511212052.AA06831@severn.wash.inmet.com> 
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:28:14 -0500
From: Ed Levinson <elevinso@Accurate.COM>

Putting intelligence into Multipart/Mixed should be resisted.
Strongly resisted.  Either Mul/Mix gets retrofitted so it knows when
the contained entities should be treated as a nodes in a graph of
related entities, or you cannot count on the receiver doing what was
intended.  That's why Multipart/Related.

All the intelligence about how to find the links and what to do with
them should reside outside the mail UA.  I call the piece that has
that intelligence the Receiving Agent, RA.  When Content-Disposition
is used I want to see the RA put the contents in a place where the
browser (more generally the helper application or display processor)
can readily find it.

For some envirionments that may be doable without modifying the
message entities.  Whatever mechanism we choose we should not require
either that the entities be change or that they be stored in specific
places.  IMO, the Content-Disposition is useful only in that it tells
me where the sender got or stored the entity.

Best.../Ed

On Tue, 21 Nov 1995 15:52:40 EST Al Gilman wrote:
> ... 
> In other words, we do need to kick the responsibility for
> supporting inter-part dependencies upstairs to Multipart/Mixed.
> ...