To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com In-Reply-To: Al Gilman's message of Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:58:28 -0800 <9511221858.AA19085@severn.wash.inmet.com> Subject: Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related From: Larry Masinter <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <95Nov22.email@example.com> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 20:07:51 PST > For future dispositions into a Web Cache, I refer you to Larry's > comments that a dispository URI would be preferable to either > Content-ID URIs or limiting disposition to files. Since file= > disposition nomination is the general case for both HTTP and > other file clusters (although in terms of the broad range of file > systems is only expected to work within a flat, single-folder > namespace), that too should be supported into the long term in > parallel with URI-designated disposition advice. For what it's worth, I'm strongly opposed to the notion that a mail recipient might put some part of a mail message into a web cache. A cache is a cache. A mail recipient interpreting a multipart message might treat included parts with a disposition URI as surrogates for the named parts FOR THE CONTEXT OF THAT MESSAGE, but in lieu of a stronger security context, interaction with the web browser's cache is a bad idea.