On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Andy Powell wrote:
> So... I read the above paper, created a couple of sample metadata files,
> configured up my system to assign correct MIME types to them, ran my
> favorite mail user agent (Pine) and sent myself a test message with the
> two files attached. It very nearly works as well! But not quite... the
> problem is that Pine groups the separate body parts together using
> multipart/mixed. The paper above suggests, quite rightly, that they
> should be grouped as multipart/related (because we're grouping related WF
> 'packages' into a WF 'container' here - a MIME message containing several
> WF 'containers' would group them using multipart/mixed).
>
> Two other MIME aware mailers that I tried also grouped body parts together
> using multipart/mixed and, as far as I can tell, none of them allow you to
> use multipart/related instead.
As Martin has said, the MIME specs says to used multipart/mixed if you
don't understand any other multipart/*'s. Interesting an Internet Draft
on the use of multipart/related has recently been released; see
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mhtml-related-01.txt>
for details. If this I-D is accepted we'll need to rework the MIME
implementation of WF a bit probably. It certainly firms multipart/related
up a bit.
Tatty bye,
Jim'll
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer
Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND. LE11 3TU.
* I've found I now dream in Perl. More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *
|