Hi Paul,
>As best I understand, multipart/alternative assumes that you
>either do or don't "support" a particular alternative, and
>that the alternatives are arranged from least-preferred to
>most-preferred by the sender. The recipient is supposed to
>use the most-preferred (as defined by the
>sender) that it "supports".
>
>I guess we could allow different attributes, besides
>content-type to be used to decide if a part is "supported",
>*if* we can come up with a well defined meaning for "supported".
>
>I guess this could work for content-language. But I don't
>know about the text-friendly vs image-containing html. Maybe,
>but it needs better definition.
Chapter 5.1.4 in RFC2046 says (and I think that describes my use-case):
"Multipart/alternative" may be used, for example, to send a message
in a fancy text format in such a way that it can easily be displayed
anywhere:
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 09:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Formatted text mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=boundary42
--boundary42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
... plain text version of message goes here ...
--boundary42
Content-Type: text/enriched
... RFC 1896 text/enriched version of same message
goes here ...
--boundary42
Content-Type: application/x-whatever
... fanciest version of same message goes here ...
--boundary42--
In this example, users whose mail systems understood the
"application/x-whatever" format would see only the fancy version,
while other users would see only the enriched or plain text version,
depending on the capabilities of their system."
Regards,
Christer
>
> Paul
>
> Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 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:
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > Let's assume I have two HTML bodies. They both contain the same
> > information, but one is "text friendly", while the other contains
> > pictures etc. Now, is that alternative or mixed(or parallel)?
> >
> >
> > 2.
> >
> > Let's assume I have the same information, but in different
> languages -
> > ie the Content-Language values are different. Is that
> alternative or
> > Mixed(or parallel)?
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, we may not have the expertise to determine whether
> alternative is
> > allowed or not in these cases. But, if the think there
> could be cases
> > where the same content type would be used for alternative,
> we need to
> > allow it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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
