[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Language translation in e-mail standards

2000-11-14 12:42:20
At 13.28 -0500 00-11-13, Keith Moore wrote:
if the vendors don't implement multipart/alternative correctly,
how is defining a new extension going to help?  we already have
a well-defined construct; what's needed is for MUA vendors to use it.

Apparently, most existing mailers understand that you should
only display one of the body parts in a multipart/alternative.
However, none of them seem to test on Content-Language,
so their choice of which body parts to show is sort of

This indicates a basic problem with the whole multipart/alternative
construct. The problem is that there is no indication to the
mailers on what property to use for selecting which body
part to show to users.

Perhaps there should be an attribute to multipart/alternative
as in the following example:

Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="==boundary-2";

This would then tell a mailer, that if it does not have
a facility for automatically selecting based on the
variable, it might ask the user or show all the body
parts as for multipart/mixed?

Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: