On Saturday, June 18, 2005, at 01:36 PM, Graham wrote:
On 17 Jun 2005, at 6:14 pm, Tim Bray wrote:
Uh, has Mark spotted a dumb bug here that we should fix? Do we care
if *remote* content is of a composite MIME type? My feeling was that
we ruled out composite types in *local* content, for fairly obvious
reasons. The fix is obvious, in 4.1.3.1
I would have no objection to this, since the spec already creates the
expectation that remote content will be less widely supported than
local content.
The better way to do this is to use <atom:link rel="alternate"> to
reference the messages.
This is certainly a better solution than multipart local content, and
would hope that people would do remote content this way too unless they
have a really good reason for multipart remote content. But I could
live with allowing multipart remote content if it's really needed in
some case.
