- 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