Subject: Re: MIME encapsulation of multipart responses

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:38:18 -0400

John wrote:
>--> > The "ALTREP" property parameter value might point to a "text/html"
> >    content portion.
> >
> >If it is not talking about another body part, what is it?

Thats now the way CIDs are defined in RFC 2392:
1. Introduction

   The use of [MIME] within email to convey Web pages and their
   associated images requires a URL scheme to permit the HTML to refer
   to the images or other data included in the message.  The Content-ID
   Uniform Resource Locator, "cid:", serves that purpose.

"included in the message" is not "in _another_ message" at least to me.

To refer to a MIME entity in another message you'd have to use the MID: 
schema which allows for references to other messages OR parts within them:

     mid-url       = "mid" ":" message-id [ "/" content-id ]

>MIME multipart is *not* valid in 2445.

Where does 2445 say that?  MIME multipart encoding is not mentioned either 
way in RFC 2445 unless you have a special copy that I dont. RFC 2445 is 
essentially a long winded registration of the MIME text/calendar type and 
subtypes...

Given I can have a CID: URI in iCalendar I damn sure think that mulitpart 
IS 'valid'.  Its probably more appropriate relative to iTIP/iMIP but its 
still relevant to iCalendar.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:35:06 -0400

> Thats now the way CIDs are defined in RFC 2392: 

Go read what I actually wrote.  To quote 2392 again:

   The "cid" scheme refers to a specific body part of a
   message; its use is generally limited to references to other body
   parts in the same message as the referring body part.

In other words, cid: can refer to a different message, but usually doesn't.

> Where does 2445 say that?  MIME multipart encoding is not mentioned 
> either way in RFC 2445

Right.  That means that you cannot assume that it is valid.  Therefore, 
it is not valid--in a standard, anything not specifically mentioned is 
forbidden.

> Given I can have a CID: URI in iCalendar I damn sure think that 
> mulitpart IS 'valid'.

No.  You can have a cid: URI that refers to an arbitrary message 
someplace out in the ether; or, if the iCalendar happens to be wrapped 
in a MIME multipart, you can have a cid: URI that points to a different 
body part in that multipart.

URIs always have this problem.  If you saw an example of HTML that used 
a gopher: URL, would you assume that all Web browsers MUST contain a 
Gopher client?

-- 
/=====================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]            |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com          |
|Centiv            |My opinions are my own.           |
|=====================================================|
|"The Reality Check's in the mail." --L. Peter Deutsch|
\=====================================================/