On 7/1/96 at 10:55 AM -0500, Laurence Lundblade wrote:
>I would like to propose rearranging the parameter named "type" in
>multipart/related so that multipart/related can be used for compound
>documents that have no "parent" part.
A late comment on this: I was thumbing through the new MIME drafts and
started wondering: Would "multipart/parallel" better describe the sort of
compoud document to which you want to apply this? I don't know of any
current uses of "multipart/parallel", but it sounds like it has the right
semantics for you.
As we discussed privately, the semantics of "multipart/related" seems more
like the parts refering to eachother as against simply being "a bunch of
things that belong together". I think perhaps "multipart/parallel" has the
Just a thought.
Pete Resnick <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Work: (217)337-6377 / Fax: (217)337-1980