Graham Klyne (GK@ninebynine.org)
Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:36:24 +0000
Eric,
I think this is a good attempt. I think the key phrase is in the second
paragraph: "MUST still be capable...".
On reflection, I think the important point that needs to be made is that
Message-context may be used by a receiving UA to determine whether, when
(and maybe where) to display a message, but should not affect its actual
rendering or presentation. E.g. if it's marked voice-message then don't
try to send it to a fax terminal; but if it's sent to a voice terminal
with a printer and there is only fax content then the "voice-message"
context shouldn't stop it from being properly rendered.
(Sorry I didn't catch this in our author exchanges, but it took seeing your
final text to trigger these thoughts.)
#g
At 05:45 PM 2/8/01 -0500, Eric Burger wrote:
>I've deleted the "limited user agent" bullet in section 4.
>
>I've changed section 7 to read as follows:
>
>
>7. Message-Context Reference Field
>
>The Message-Context reference field is a top-level header inserted by the
>sending UA to indicate the context of the message.
>
>A receiving user agent MUST NOT depend on the indicated message-context
>value in a way that prevents proper presentation of the message. If the
>value is incorrect or does not match the message content, the receiving user
>agent MUST still be capable of displaying the message content at least as
>meaningfully as it would if no Message-Context value were present.
>
>One can envision situations where a well-formed message ends up not
>including a media type one would expect from the message-context. For
>example, consider a voice messaging system that records a voice message and
>also performs speech-to-text processing on the message. The message then
>passes through a content gateway, such as a firewall, that removes
>non-critical body parts over a certain length. The receiving user agent
>will receive a message in the voice-message context that has only a text
>part and no audio. Even though the message does not have audio, it is still
>in the voice message context.
>
>
>
>Sound OK?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger@snowshore.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 9:36 PM
> > To: vpim@lists.neystadt.org
> > Cc: Caleb Clausen
> > Subject: RE: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-hint-02.txt
> >
> >
> > It sounds like you will have to scan the entire message
> > irrespective of the message context.
>[snip]
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org
> > > [mailto:owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org]On Behalf Of Caleb Clausen
> > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 3:03 PM
> > > To: vpim@lists.neystadt.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vpim-hint-02.txt
>[snip]
> > > this type of use seems to be implied by the draft in, for instance,
> > > the following paragraphs:
> > > > The uses of this kind of presentation characteristic for each
> > > > message is multi-fold:
> > > [snip]
> > > > o Filter the message list for presentation via
> > > > limited-capability
> > > > user interfaces (e.g., there is no point in offering images
> > > > when the user is connected by a voice-only telephone user
> > > > interface).
>[snip]
------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Feb 09 2001 - 09:45:28 IST