On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 08:46:34 GMT,
chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk (Charles Lindsey) said:
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?
Actually, option #3 strikes me as incredibly neat. However, I *do* fear
the consequences of a "reply with text" or other citing mechanism, as the
usual '> ' will *totally* mangle the entire thing, leaving pure zorkumblattum.
Fortunately, the two main uses for this "feature" that I can think of are:
1) Changing charsets on the fly - this would probably be better addressed
by sending *one* bodypart with a UTF-8 charset. Anybody disagree on that?
2) Embedding a small image/button/etc - this is better addressed with a
text/html and multipart/related.
Anybody think of anything I've missed?
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
pgpfBQKjJClNF.pgp
Description: PGP signature