From: Neil(_dot_)Katin(_at_)eng(_dot_)sun(_dot_)com (Neil Katin )
Subject: Re: file attachments in MIME Re: file attachments in MIME
Nathaniel, I agree completely. In fact, this has been a problem when
trying to be compatible between the Andrew mime mailer (where all
body parts are conceptually "concatenated", and Sun's attachment
model (where body parts are conceptually distinct, separate
documents).
I believe that both are valid models; MIME shouldn't take a position
that discourages either one. But we absolutely need a way to differentiate
which model was intended.
...
Neil
Isn't there a middle ground?
It requires some knowledge built into the UA, unfortunately (or maybe this
can be described in a table?) .. Anyway what's on my mind is:
The structural body parts give hints about how to present things. For
instance multipart/parallel indicates that its subsidiary bodyparts
should be presented as one ``thing'' while multipart/digest and
multipart/alternative indicate they should be presented as another
level inward of ``things''. You can go through the other bodyparts
and make the same kind of decision.
Even when presenting a group of parts as one ``thing'' there should
be a mode where you can look at the structure details and access the
individual pieces.
<- David Herron <david(_at_)twg(_dot_)com> (work)
<david(_at_)davids(_dot_)mmdf(_dot_)com> (home)
<-
<- "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change
them."
<- Karen Hargrove of Microsoft quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial.