Ist multipart/mixed really correct?

Ist multipart/mixed really correct?

[Karl Pflästerer]

Hi,
from a discussion in another newsgroup about the fact that Gnus under
special circumstances does create multipart postings we thought about
the correct value for the mime header.

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

,----[ rfc 2046 ]
|    The two composite top-level media types are:
| 
|     (1)   multipart -- data consisting of multiple entities of
|           independent data types.  Four subtypes are initially
|           defined, including the basic "mixed" subtype specifying
|           a generic mixed set of parts, "alternative" for
|           representing the same data in multiple formats,
|           "parallel" for parts intended to be viewed
|           simultaneously, and "digest" for multipart entities in
|           which each part has a default type of "message/rfc822".
`----

   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"

Re: Ist multipart/mixed really correct?

[iMeowbot]

In article <m3vfsnx75t.fsf@hamster.pflaesterer.de>,
 sigurd@12move.de (Karl Pflasterer) wrote:

> from a discussion in another newsgroup about the fact that Gnus under
> special circumstances does create multipart postings we thought about
> the correct value for the mime header.

Are you referring to cases when it mixes character sets?

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

multipart/parallel is an odd duck.  "In particular, in a parallel 
entity, the order of body parts is not significant." [RFC2046: 5.1.6]  
Perhaps it might be useful for some kind of multimedia presentation, but 
such things tend to be bundled into a single entity or get triggered at 
a higher level like a markup language.

multipart/mixed explicitly preserves order, so it's usually what you 
want.

Re: Ist multipart/mixed really correct?

[Jesper Harder]

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

> from a discussion in another newsgroup about the fact that Gnus under
> special circumstances does create multipart postings we thought about
> the correct value for the mime header.
>
> Gnus declares the posting as multipart/mixed but according to rfc 2046
> multipart/parallel seems to be the correct alternative. WDYT?

Hard to say without knowing which special circumstances you're
thinking about.

Re: Ist multipart/mixed really correct?

[Karl Pflästerer]

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

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

>> from a discussion in another newsgroup about the fact that Gnus under
>> special circumstances does create multipart postings we thought about
>> the correct value for the mime header.

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

> Hard to say without knowing which special circumstances you're
> thinking about.

Sorry the reason was so obvious to me I didn't mention it: I you have a
posting with different charcter encodings which can't be unified you get
multipart/mixed.

   KP

-- 
   Mary had a little lambda,
   Its syntax white as snow,
   And every program Mary wrote,
   She wrote in Lisp, you know.

Re: Ist multipart/mixed really correct?

[Jesper Harder]

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.

Re: Ist multipart/mixed really correct?

[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"