Re: Improper handling of some mime types

[Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)]

Kurt Swanson <direct@reply.not.desired> writes:

> Yes, I agree, if the mime is constructed this way, the image shouldn't
> be seen with text/plain.  When I C-d the article I see:
>
>    [1274: Diana Kulaga        ] <* related> V. Rev. Masao Yamada
>    [  33: Diana Kulaga        ] <1.* alternative>
>    [   4: Diana Kulaga        ] <1.1 text>
>    [  16: Diana Kulaga        ] <1.2 html>
>    [1227: Diana Kulaga        ] <2 jpeg> "V.
>
> This, along with my cursory inspection of the raw file, lead me to
> believe that the jpeg is not associated solely with the html.  I may
> be wrong.  I was wrong once in my life before...

That's right, the image is not only associated with the html.  But
multipart/related means that the first part should refer to the other
parts.  The text/html variant of the first part actually does this,
via a hyperlink.

But the text/plain version of the first part does not refer to the
second part, so the second part is not displayed.

(Imagine you had two text/html variants, and one was missing the
<a>...</a> element.)

kai
-- 
~/.signature is: umop 3p!sdn    (Frank Nobis)