Larry,
Modifying the HTML is, in my view, to be avoided so your suggestion A
is out.
How does suggestion B solve the Absolute vs Relative problem? The
embedded link is relative, what goes into the table or cDisp header
that resolves the problem?
Ed
On Fri, 03 Nov 1995 17:11:09 PST Larry Masinter wrote:
You have two choices when mailing an HTML document that
originally contained relative links, but including the referenced
documents in the mail:
A. rewrite embedded URLs
B. don't rewrite embedded URLs
In case A, you have two choices:
...
In case B, you must indicate somewhere how the embedded URLs link up
to the actual data supplied in the multipart/related stream. There are
two choices:
B.1. Identify the correspondence between embedded URLs and
content-ID by a table/catalog/etc.
B.2. Identify the correspondence between the embedded URLs and
the other parts of multipart/related by including
content-location or content-disposition, but letting
the disposition be a relative address.
...
If you're not going to rewrite the HTML, B.2 looks like it is simpler,
but has the problem that the interpretation of the header of an
individual part of the multipart/related depends on information that
is outside of the part. This was a problem with multipart/form-data
also, and something that I struggled with.
I think we're better off with B.1., except that we need to invent the
format of the table.