- From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 10:26:01 +0200
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>, mhtml@SEGATE.SUNET.SE
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com
At 09.05 -0400 97-08-30, Al Gilman wrote:
> Some reading I have done recently in the HTML 4 draft suggests
> that webmasters are interested in managing metadata such as
> locators for "house styles" on a directory (file tree) basis and
> not always at the atomic file level. This is probably reflective
> of archive management practices more generally. This suggests
> that bringing the MHTML base-finding rules in line with RFC 1808
> would be more consistent with the way that many of the files to
> be transmitted as MIME parts are managed at their originating
> sites, and you are more likely to get header usage in practice
> that matches the published rules.
Does your statement answer the question on which has highest
priority in deriving the base, an inner Content-Location or
an outer Content-Base?
Does this mean that people are mapping directory structure to MIME
multiparts? For example, if you have a directory structure:
dir1
file1.1
dir1.2
file1.2.1
file1.3
then this is sent via e-mail as
Content-Type: Multipart/mixed
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=dir1
...
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=file1.1
...
Content-Type: Multipart/mixed
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=dir1.2
...
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=file1.2.1
...
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=file1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme
Received on Monday, 1 September 1997 06:01:26 UTC