On Thu, 27 May 1993 16:17:35 EDT, you said:
My gut feeling is still that the semantics of each multipart/related
"header" will be so different one from another that they might as well
each be their own multipart subtype. -- Nathaniel
I tend to agree. Is there *really* a problem with us producing
seperate RFC's specifying 'multipart/pem', 'multipart/attachements',
'multipart/ChainSawWidget', etc? Yes, I realize that wanton
proliferation of types is frowned upon, but I think it would be
a win overall if the 3 or 5 most common varieties had their
own subtypes with specified semantics, rather than trying to
create a one-size-fits-all /related. If anything, 'multipart/related'
is really a misnomer. After all - how often do you send several
*unrelated* pieces of anything in one e-mail? ;) As such, it
strikes me as being just about as informative as 'appplication/octet-stream'
Computer Systems Engineer