From NED(_at_)SIGURD(_dot_)INNOSOFT(_dot_)COM Tue Mar 2 15:44 PST 1993
Bill's mail addresses my concerns, and seems simple enough to
not needlessly complicate the model. Thanks!
I think it complicates the model much more than adding a separate header or
parameter does. In particular, it requires that any attachment be inside of an
additional multipart message. This significantly complicates the very common
situation where a message has no body at all other than a single file
attachment. (The intent of the message is then usually conveyed on the
Subject:
line.)
As I mentioned in my previous posting, I do agree that this information
doesn't
belong in a Content-Type parameter. But a separate header line strikes me as
just the ticket -- it is clean and simple, and does not overload message
structuring with information that's really structure-independent.
I can live with a separate header field too. I'm sure that I
can make "my s/w talking to my s/w" work OK by using this, but I
am a bit concerned about all those other wierd s/w packages that
may express a more wierd configuration with this more flexible
syntax.
But, in the end, it is advisory info anyway, so the most important
thing is to always be reasonable.
Neil