I have just submitted a new version of the MHTML ietf draft.
It can be found at URL:
Changes since the previous version 03:
[log in to unmask] has made a large number of language
changes, which do not convey any change of intention, only a matter
of clarity and language usage. Isaac Chan has also suggested a number
of changes of the same kind.
The most important changes not suggested by Nick Shelness are:
Added text in section 3:
This standard can also be used to send sets of linked documents which
are not shown simultaneously, and where the user can use links to move
(This addition was necessary, because a change of wording made by Nick
Shelness could be interpreted to mean that the standard only applied to
linked objects which are to be shown inline. I do not believe this is our
intention? Or is it?)
Added text in section 6:
Although not normal, a text/html resource may be sent with
unresolvable links, for example when two authors exchange
drafts of unfinished resources.
(Again, this addition was necessary, because a change of wording made by
Nick Shelness might give the impression that the standard does not cover
sending of such documents).
In section 7:
This standard does not cover links from one multipart/related to
another multipart/related in a message containing multiple
added text at the end:
either in parallel or nested one within the other.
I am a little wondering about one change which Nick Shelness made:
; Note that the fact that the Content-Base comes after the
; Content-Location within the same Content-Heading will not
; influence their interpretation
I have made the change, but is not sure why Nick wanted this change.
There is too little time left before the ietf draft submission
deadline for me to ask him why he made this change.
Jacob Palme <[log in to unmask]> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme