- From: Ned Freed <ned@SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 19:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
- To: asg@severn.wash.inmet.com
- Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asg@severn.wash.inmet.com, elevinso@Accurate.COM, ietf-types@cs.utk.edu, uri@bunyip.com
> b) The likely use of CID is to reference bodyparts within a > multipart/related. The likely use of MID is to refer to messages in a > message store (like an IMAP server). Some mail readers will support > one and not the other. The two need to be able to succeed or fail on > their own merits, rather than trying to load each one with the other's > burdens. > If that's the only use, you don't need to define a URI to cover > the cid case. To define a URI, you need to think of the bulk > of the URI users who are not MIME mail handlers. I know of nothing that says a given URL scheme has to be universally applicable. (If so I would argue that several current URLs should never have been defined.) The specific application for cid URLs that's currently envisioned is to let HTML material sent via email refer to other parts of the message. It has to be a URL because that's the hook to external stuff HTML provides. cid URLs may not be used much outside of this context. But they will be used in this way -- there's considerable demand for the service. Ned
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 1995 23:18:50 UTC