Re: content-type: text/plain; magic=on; magic=off
2004-05-28 06:49:28
if a message has the content-type field mentioned in the subject,
which seems valid as far as I can tell, then which setting wins?
Should a compliant mail reader enable or disable magic while reading
such a message?
two gut reactions:
1. if a content-type wants to define some behavior in which it makes
sense to use the same parameter more than once, I don't recall anything
in the MIME spec that prohibits that, and I can think of a few cases
where it would be useful. e.g.
content-type: message/external-body; access-type=url;
url="http://some.site/"; url="http://other.site/"
could specify multiple locations at which the desired content could be
found.
however, I suspect that this would break assumptions made by some
implementations, and for that reason I'd probably object to a proposal
for a content-type that tried to use the same parameter more than once.
2. there are so many ways to do meaningless or stupid things in email
that I doubt it's productive to try to specify the "right" behavior in
every case. only the most common errors seem worth the trouble.
|
|