ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Alternative multipart/alternative?

1999-09-13 15:29:07
At 10:29 13/09/99 -0700, Laurence Lundblade wrote:
At 09:35 AM 9/13/99 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Did somebody once propose an modified form of multipart/alternative, with
reversed ordering of the alternative parts (i.e. high-to-low fidelity
rather than the standard low-to-high)?

in the absence of a mechansim to know whether the recipient could
handle such a construct, what would be the point?

There's a distinction here between the recipient handling MIME and the 
recipient handling the particular most rich alternative. I believe m/a 
ordering was chosen with the user of a non-MIME mailer in mind where the 
text part will show up before the (for them) alphabet soup b64'd PDF or 
such. Being friendly to non-MIME mailers is important and probably 
eliminates any possibility of reversing the order.

I generally agree with all of the above.  Your belief is what I understand
to be stated by RFC 2046 on m/a.

However if we ignore non-MIME mailers for arguments sake then reversing the 
order would help with low memory implementations. The client skips 
alternatives until one is found that can be handled without having to 
"save" the previous part during the parse.

Yes... "if".

....  If you're 
trying to MIME parse one-pass right of the wire because you can't store 
much of the message at all then you're sort of stuck. I believe this is the 
*single aspect of MIME* that prohibits one-pass processing.

Again, I agree.  (w.r.t MIME conformance per RFC 2049?)

One option to get around this might be to assume that m/a is generally used 
only for text/plain and text/html. I can't recall seeing anything else. If 
that's the case then you make your decision at coding time. If your 
implementation can deal with HTML you always skip the text/plain 
alternative. If it can't you always take the text/plain alternative.

The case I am considering is to do with fax image formats, so that doesn't
really help.  I was checking to ascertain whether or not there might be an
existing mechanism before considerations turn to inventing someting new.

Thanks,

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK(_at_)ACM(_dot_)ORG)


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