Hi Nathaniel -- You said ...
OK, I'm convinced. If we're going to be exposing the labels to the
end users, then the message-id format is too restrictive, and the
message-id name is too misleading. I'll put some prose about
Content-Label back into the next draft. -- Nathaniel
Again, in the intersts of using names that naturally and normally mean
what we mean, I suggest that you consider the name "Body-Part-Label",
perhaps "Part-Label" since content label is something strange and more
abstract than we need here. (I don't really know what a content label
might be, but it does not bring "body-part" to mind, private or
We are after all talking about doing parts in parallel or in sequence.
We are not talking about doing contents in parallel or in sequence.