On Monday 11 June 2007 16:49:18 Antoni Mylka wrote: > Evgeny Egorochkin pisze: > > The objection I have here is that Attachment should be Email. Since > > that's where attachments are stored. As you know attachment is just > > another part of an email. Stored *in* an attachment is a stretch. > > Not only email > > VCARD attachments: PHOTO (RFC 2426 sec. 3.1.4), LOGO (sec. 3.5.3), SOUND > (sec. 3.6.6.), KEY (sec. 3.7.2) > > ICAL attachments: ATTACH (RFC 2445 sec. 4.8.1.1) > > ID3 attachments: attached picture (http://www.id3.org/id3v2.3.0 sec. > 4.15), general encapsulated object (op. cit. 4.16) > > EXIF attachments: audio data (http://www.exif.org/Exif2-2.PDF sec. 5). > Used by some digital cameras to attach a sound clip to a picture. > > That's why I would opt for a generic Attachment class, without > references to email. I do agree that an attachment is part of an email.
Thanks for your insight. I didn't realize so many file formats had attachments. Maybe EmbeddedFile or EmbeddedContent is a more generic name of this? I suspect there will be several attachment subtypes. -- Evgeny _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
