2007/3/21, Nicholas Shanks:
On 17 Mar 2007, at 23:28, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> I think that in most cases will be better if we could package
> complex pages into zip envelopes and deliver them in the whole.
> That would be real solution of "jumps". And <img width=...
> height=...> is a palliative.
I have an open bug with Safari requesting support for the multipart/
mixed Content-Type. This would provide the "ziped" content you
request (and you can use a Transfer-Encoding to compress it before
sending)
In this particular case, multipart/related would be more appropriate.
See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHTML
If you talked about serving the images in a multipart/* envelope,
multipart/alternate is more appropriate than multipart/mixed.
But, hey, RFC2046 states (§5.1.3) that « Any "multipart" subtypes that
an implementation does not recognize must be treated as being of
subtype "mixed" », so in terms of client implementations, supporting
multipart/mixed might be enough.
--
Thomas Broyer
