From: Rens Troost <rens(_at_)lorax(_dot_)shearson(_dot_)com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 06:58:57 -0500
Harald> Why not define an extendible mechanism for Multipart:
Harald> content-type=multipart/structured; control=first [or last]
I have been dwelling on this for a few days while sharpening the
Content-Disposition stuff, and I am beginning to becom convinced that
this way may be better, or at least complementary. I originally put
forth content-disposition because it provided a cleaner way to
represent dispositional info than mucking about with the message
structure, and because it gave a good location for other dispositional
info (filename, content caching hints, etc.) which just did not
belong anywhere else. These are all good things, and I still think
they are necessary.
But it is more important, I think, to have a unified view of multipart
files. This is true with PEM, with Mac files, and with structured
documents. I like your proposal, Harald, except that instead of
'first' or 'last' I would use the Content-ID of the organizer.
When handling this sort of thing Content-ID is not really optional.
Rens, I like the new proposal better; at least it matches
more closely my model for how "attachments" would work.
I realize that others have other models though.
Perhaps we need to describe the model, and let the syntax
follow rather than the other way around?
Neil