Larry Masinter <masinter(_at_)parc(_dot_)xerox(_dot_)com> writes
I don't understand the complexity that comes from putting the
text/plain alternative inside the multipart/related instead of
outside. I also don't get why the convolution with external-body
references. Why isn't this example just:
================================================================
1 Content-type: Multipart/Alternative
1.1 Content-Type: Text/plain
Content-Description: plain text version for those who
cannot read HTML
1.2 Content-type: Multipart/Related; type=text/html
1.2.1 Content-Type: Text/HTML
Content-Description: HTML version of the same message,
which may contain external file references
<IMG SRC="cid:1.3@accurate.com">
1.2.2 Content-Type: Image/GIF
Content-Description: the GIF picture
Content-ID: <1(_dot_)3(_at_)accurate(_dot_)com>
With the structure you propose, a mailer which does not understand
Text/HTML will have to take the first choice in the Multipart/
Alternative. That mailer will then never read the Image/GIF part, even
though the mailer may be fully capable of interpreting and showing GIF
pictures. This means that those users whose mailers cannot handle HTML,
will never see the GIF picture. That is exactly what I wanted to avoid
with the structure I proposed!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme