At 12:26 AM 5/28/93 -0400, t.l.hansen wrote:
Whether it's called
multipart/related or something else is really irrelevent, as long as the
functionality is provided. If you can come up with a better name, great.
Like Content-Disposition? :-)
Personally, I'd rather the individual parts were labelled
(Content-Disposition) rather than putting all this stuff in the multipart
header (Multipart/Related). It seems much simpler and more
And I agree with the sentiment that the semantics of these structured
multipart entities will vary so much that it's hard to imagine a general
mechanism that can describe how to handle them. I think explicit subtypes
of multipart are going to be needed.
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Inc.
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel IngSoc.