From: "Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gonzalo's draft say that, when multipart/alternative is used, different body parts can not have the same content type.
Below are a couple of use-cases where the same content type is used, and which may still be feasible for alternative: You have a good point, though the use cases you've presented might be dubious. But I'd say that we don't want to *prescribe* that the alternative parts must be different (based on any particular attributes) in case some implementation decides to *depend* on that rule, and we later discover a use case that makes the rule disadvantageous. A better statement is that repeated content-types are likely to be due to an error in design on the sender's part, but they are allowed. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
