Eric Burger (eburger@snowshore.com)
Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:45:34 -0500
At the VPIM lunch BOF, I reviewed why we said "no" to putting
Critical-Content as a parameter to Content-Disposition.
Going back to the deep, dark past, the original proposal was to do the
following:
Content-Disposition: attachment; content-notification=true
This was shot down because per-part notification control and part type
labeling did not belong as a "disposition". This scenario came about in the
evolution of partial-non-delivery notification (PNDN) to the critical
content concept.
Looking over the archives and some private correspondence, it is clear that
content-notification, as a part of PNDN, is an inappropriate use of
Content-Disposition. However, it is also clear that criticality IS an
appropriate use of Content-Disposition.
Given the realities of BODYSTRUCTURE, and the fact that we are NOT bending
Content-Disposition too far, the consensus is to use a CRITICALITY parameter
to Content-Disposition, rather than a new MIME entity, for criticality
marking.
The -03 way of marking:
Critical part:
--Next part
Content-Type: ...
Content-Disposition: attachment; file=foo.bar
Content-Criticality: CRITICAL
...
Not important part:
--Next part
Content-Type: ...
Content-Disposition: attachment; file=foo.bar
Content-Criticality: IGNORE
...
The -04 (future) way of marking:
Critical part:
--Next part
Content-Type: ...
Content-Disposition: attachment; file=foo.bar; criticality=CRITICAL
...
Not important part:
--Next part
Content-Type: ...
Content-Disposition: attachment; file=foo.bar; criticality=IGNORE
...
Speak now...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 22 2001 - 19:45:18 IDT