Hi Brian, > I was not advocating getting rid of ICS. I think it is a very important > tool for adoption. I was raising the point that if ICS was an alternative > part to the plain/text part, that the average mail user would > have no way of adding the ICS Event / Task to his or her > non-Chandler calendar. > > Since ICS is *important* and must be easily accessible from a > Chandler Mail Message I don't see how it could be an alternative > part.
Yup, I understand, and I agree. I'm saying .ics probably shouldn't shift from being an attachment to multipart/alternative for the reasons you mention. As it happens, I think using multipart/alternative for iCalendar data does work for mail clients that are closely connected to calendar agents, like GMail, iCal, Outlook, Lightning, and Notes, but that's not enough to make such a change. Attachments are visible and can be manipulated much more easily than MIME alternatives, we need that for iCalendar. But I don't think we need that for EIMML. So I'm only advocating that we move EIMML to multipart/alternative. Sincerely, Jeffrey _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
