The case I was commenting on had the example of an attached C program
that the user wanted to represent by an icon in the middle of text.
This function might be better addressed by a referencing mechanism
(the other-part-of-this-message: URL we have talked about earlier),
but it might also be represented as:
text/plain; disp=inline This is my new and excellent
text/plain; disp=attachment <C program source - LOTS of it>
text/plain; disp=inline C program; click on it to see the source
Now, I still get shudders every time I encounter something that flows
text between body parts, but still, that was what he wanted.
I can't tell why I didn't think it would be covered by the
"inline/attachment" semantics now, though; please forget that I spoke.