Caleb Clausen (caleb.clausen@connsys.com)
Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:44:42 -0700
i'm sorry to be raising objections at this late date. perhaps it is a
reflection of my poor understanding of the issues, but there's a
paragraph (at the beginning of section 9) in the latest draft that
puzzles me:
> Section 9.3 is a registration for a new Content-Disposition
> parameter, "Message-Context". The registration follows the
> requirements for Content-Disposition registrations as described in
> Section 9 of [2].
my understanding of Message-Context was that it was a top-level
email header in it's own right, not a parameter to Content-
Disposition. in fact, that's what it says in the very first sentence of
section 1:
> This memo describes a new RFC822 message header, "Message-Context".
so, which is it:
an rfc822 header?
a parameter to Content-Disposition?
or both?
if it is a parameter to Content-Disposition, that creates a problem.
the message-context no longer is easy to parse without examining
the entire message.
if it is both, that creates more problems. what if there are multiple,
conflicting definitions, in both the Message-Context and Content-
Disposition headers? do receivers need to look for the Message-
Context in both places?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jun 04 2001 - 22:43:18 IDT