saying that a message can contain one or more BODY PARTS. Coping with this
informal conversation practice by changing the definition does induce the
need to make numerous adjustments to the document(s), in a way that makes
it more complicated and more 'special cased' that it already was, which
IMO will lead to less chances to get correct implementations.
I still disagree with all of this. The term body part describes something
consisting of a set of content headers and the associated body, regardless of
where it appears. I think that this is the only definition that makes any
sense at all.
I hesitate to get in the fray, but I've tried to follow this discussion and
in the final analysis I agree with Ned's statement above (second paragraph).
Its seems natural. Whether or not the new language actually accomplishes this
remains to be seen, as I am one of those readers who read the spec in such a
way that it "meant what I wanted it to mean", and have not reread the new stuff
Brent Stilley, Oklahoma State University, 113 Math Sciences, Stillwater, 74078