On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 20:41:50 +0700, Ron Croonenberg said:
I'm not sure why this is needed. As I see it, the html browser would
expand the relative urls as it normally does. If images or other
links that the page refers to are included in the message, why can the
sender generate the absolute URL and include that with the body part
(i.e., Content-Location: http://www.bar.com/~ed/portrait.gif).
Why not send it as an Message/external-body, with an access-type a la
"anon-ftp" ? That way it looks like we only have to discuss the access-type,
in
case we (?) choose for URL-???? a message could like something like:
What is being overlooked here is that quite often, external body parts
are *not* an appropriate way to transfer data. For instance, the machine
I am posting this from doesn't support anonymous FTP. And if I wish to send
an image to somebody, I want to *send it now* and forget about it - I dont
want to have to worry about "can I delete that file, or has the guy not
read his mail yet..."
So indeed, we *do* need a way to say "a URL referencing another body
part of the message <message ID>".
The *real* fun starts when we start considering follow-ups and replies, where
I may wish to say "see body part 7 of Fred's note from Tuesday", which
would get expressed in terms of some combination of message-ID to
identify Fred's note, and content-ID to flag part 7.
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Engineer
Virginia Tech
