Re: Ist multipart/mixed really correct?

[sigurd@12move.de (Karl Pflästerer)]

On 24 Aug 2003, Jesper Harder <- harder@myrealbox.com wrote:

> sigurd@12move.de (Karl Pflästerer) writes:

>>> sigurd@12move.de (Karl Pflästerer) writes:

>>>> Gnus declares the posting as multipart/mixed but according to rfc 2046
>>>> multipart/parallel seems to be the correct alternative. WDYT?

>> I you have a posting with different charcter encodings which can't
>> be unified you get multipart/mixed.

> I don't think multipart/parallel is the correct type for this
> circumstance.  RFC 2046 says:

> ,----
> |    In particular, in a parallel entity, the order of body parts is
> |    not significant.
> | 
> |    A common presentation of this type is to display all of the parts
> |    simultaneously on hardware and software that are capable of doing
> |    so.
> `----

> Clearly, the order of the parts _is_ significant in this case.  We
> wouldn't want all of the parts to be popped up in different windows as
> the RFC suggests is a common way of representing
> multipart/alternative.

I think you are right.  I will answer in the other group in that manner.

   KP

-- 
 He took his vorpal sword in hand:
     Long time the manxome foe he sought--
 So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
     And stood awhile in thought.  "Lewis Carroll" "Jabberwocky"