[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Attachment Clarification

1995-01-18 02:02:37
Lennart Wrote >>>
I'd like to make sure that I understand the intention behind the attachment  
content disposition.  From reading the draft it sounds like attachments are  
supposed to be presented separately from the message body, eg. as a shelf of  
icons or a list of file names.  My question is what do I do if I have a  
multimedia mail system that allows text, graphics, and icons representing  
files to be mixed freely?

I to am interested in ensuring that this case be understood clearly, whether it 
should be explicitly stated in the CD draft is a matter for the entire group, 
but I think it would be very useful.  

In section 2 of the draft >>>>

    Two common ways of presenting multipart electronic messages
    are as a main document with a list of separate attachments,
    and as a single document with the various parts expanded
    (displayed) inline. 

Larent's case could be added here, i.e. in the case where multipart electronic 
messages could be a single document with expanded parts displayed inline or as 
attachments (icons)

Lennart, you mentioned the following case:

Hey Fred,

Take a look at this image: [an image is displayed here]!  I created it using  
this program: [an icon representing a C file is here].  Try it out yourself.   
Here is some input data you can use: [an icon for a data file is here].


Would a reasonable MIME representation look something like this:

           text/plain -- inline
           image/gif -- inline; filename=foo.gif
           text/plain -- inline
           application/x-c-file -- attachment; filename=foo.c
           text/plain -- inline
           application/octet-stream -- attachment;
           text/plain -- inline


Yes, this makes a lot of sense, and I believe that this is the intention of 
this document. If you look at the case in Section 4 or the draft it actually 
describes this case nearly, although it could be expanded to cover the exact 
mix you describe above just to make sure that it is understood well.

Lannert Wrote>>>>>>
If so, how would you distinguish this use of C-D: attachment from one that  
refers to attachments that are truly separate from the body?

I think I missed the point here. could you provide an example?


E-Mail - sukvg(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com
Bus Tel: 206-936-9761

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • RE: Attachment Clarification, Sukvinder S. Gill <=