Paul Kyzivat wrote: ... > > OPEN ISSUE 2: we know that we do not want two SDPs in a > > 'multipart/ > > alternative', but is this valid generally with any content type? > > Would it be possible to provide two alternative body > > parts using the > > same format and, thus, the same content type but in, > > say, different > > languages? > > Its my understanding that the distinction is based on which can be > understood, relative to Content-Type. It isn't apparent to me that > making this decision based on other attributes is valid. For > one thing the parts are supposed to be ordered by increasing > richness. If they differed by language this wouldn't be true.
Multipart/alternative is the best we have, though. And who is to say that image/jpeg is richer than image/gif, or that english is richer than latin? Anyway, the following RFCs standardize the use of Content-Language and refer to using multipart/alternative when providing support for multiple languages: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3282 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3066 -d _______________________________________________ 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
