[Top] [All Lists]

Re: C-D: Attachment Clarification

1995-01-19 16:28:41
At 2:06 PM 1/19/95, Lennart Lovstrand wrote:
above saying: "Use these two files: <...> <...>" and I might have a
message saying "Use these two files" with the two attachments listed
separately.  Both messages translate into:

          application/octet-stream -- attachment
          application/octet-stream -- attachment

I can't see that there is much difference between:

        Use these two files: [icon 1]  [icon 2]


        Use these two files:
        [icon 1]  [icon 2]

It's a much more interesting problem if you mix them up:

(1)     Look at image 1: [icon 1]
        Look at image 2: [icon 2]

You would produce this (leaving aside for now Crowley's valid point about

(A)     multipart/mixed
          text/plain - inline
          image/jpeg - attachment
          text/plain - inline
          image/jpeg - attachment

I think the intent here is clear.  If I wanted the user to see:

(2)     Look at image 1:
        Look at image 2:
        [icon 1]  [icon 2]

Then I would have written something like:

(B)     multipart/mixed
          text/plain - inline
          image/jpeg - attachment
          image/jpeg - attachment

I really don't think it's sensible for a mailer to display (A) as (2), if
it's capable of displaying it as (1) (modulo some newlines or prompts or

Now, some mailers may just plain not be able to do anything like (1); fine,
they can't, they have to do (2), and it's not very nice.  But it's not
going to help them be able to do (1) if I tell them "CD: inline-icon"--they
still can't do it.

Multipart/mixed parts should be presented in order; it's just that
attachment parts take an extra step to display.

Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Incorporated.  "Oog make mission statement."

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>