Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Wed, 22 Nov 1995 20:07:51 PST


To: asg@severn.wash.inmet.com
Cc: ietf-types@cs.utk.edu, uri@bunyip.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 <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <95Nov22.200754pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.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.