Harald(_dot_)T(_dot_)Alvestrand(_at_)uninett(_dot_)no writes:
I would suggest that you have shown the need for a new type of
attachment:
content-disposition: attachment-represented-by-inline-icon
Actually, I have thought that this behavior was the intended
semantics of the _attachment_ type. If the sender would want the
icons for the attachments to be placed at the end of the message
text, he/she can simply place the corresponding body parts at
the end of the Multipart structure. Can't the text defining the
semantics of the attachment type be tightened up to prescribe
this behavior?
BTW: will you suggest the use of the ietf-types(_at_)uninett(_dot_)no list for
the discussion of new content-dispositions, as is now done for
content-types? (It ended up @uninett.no after a long and confusing
journey from RFC 1590. Send to ietf-types-request(_at_)uninett(_dot_)no to
join)
Yes, this list could be used for everything that is possible to
register according to MIME, that means also access types.
--
Olle Jarnefors, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
<ojarnef(_at_)admin(_dot_)kth(_dot_)se>