ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Default Dispositions

1999-10-19 07:27:35
--On Tuesday, 19 October, 1999, 08:46 +0000 Charles Lindsey
<chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:

Option #3 seems like the most reasonable interpretation to
me.  If you have >a multipart/mixed, and a part doesn't have a
content-disposition, it makes >the most sense to me to display
the part inline if you can and as an >attachment if you can't.

I am surprised (but a couple of other responses that have not
reached the list yet also support that view).

My chief concern with #3 is that the reader get no indication
that the message was a multipart. He just sees the texts
following on with no apparent break (even on the same line, if
the author was careful to arrange it that way). Are you happy
with that?

My initial impression was "silly", for just that reason, but
don't have time right now to compose an in-depth explanation.
The only strong argument I can think of for it is that it would
force a lot more use of content-disposition, which may or may
not be desireable.  The notion of using multiparts to represent
different charsets/ languages into a single message flow was
discussed during the MIME development process and rejected ---
that sort of thing really needs to be done by markup, not
multipart structures and the hope that the receiving MUA will do
something very specific.

    john


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