First let me apologize to the group for not getting these comments in
earlier. Reviewing this draft or its precursors has been on my to-do list
for the last month, but I just haven't been able to get to it any sooner.
Also, I tried to read it from the standpoint of someone new to the subject.
General comments.
----------------
IMHO, the document could do with copy editing, but if this is merely my
opinion ignore it.
Also, I find the use of the same boundary string with the text
"boundary-example-1" confusing. I suggest removing the enumeration, or even
better, changing the string to "MIME-boundary".
Specific comments.
-----------------
Section 4.2 Para. 1
" ... the URI that corresponds to the content ... "
I'm not sure that a URI corresponds to content. Strictly speaking in the
context of MHTML a Content-location header labels the content. Thus I would
suggest the following:-
... the URI that labels the content ...
Section 4.2 Para. 2
I'm not sure that this para. adds any value, and therefore, I think that it
should be deleted in its entirety.
Section 4.2 Example
Its not clear what this is an example of.
Section 5 Item (d)
" ... in surrounding multi-part headings. ... "
should read -
... in surrounding multipart and message headings. ...
I'm not sure that the second sentence adds any meaning beyond that
expressed earlier, and therefore, I think that it should be deleted in its
entirety.
Section 5 Para. 1 following Item List
I'm not sure the phrase following the last comma adds any meaning beyond
that expressed earlier, and therefore, I think that it should be deleted in
its entirety.
Section 7 Para 2
I would add the phrase -
, either in parallel or nested one within the other
at the end of the paragraph.
Note, that this and other paragraphs within the draft render
Larry Masinter's construction -
1 multipart/related
1a message/rfc822
1a1 multipart/related
1a1a text/html
1a1b image/gif
1b image/gif
in which an URL in an inner multipart/related references
a body part in an outer multipart/related illegal!
If we want to allow these constructs then we will have
to alter the draft to do so.
Section 7 Para 2 following the Item List
" ... , as well as verify the documents against their WWW counterpoints. "
I'm not sure that this phrase adds any value, and therefore, I think that
it should be deleted in its entirety.
Section 7 Para. 4 following the Item List
" ... links to MIME body parts outside of the current "multipart/related"
... "
should for consistency read -
... links to MIME body parts outside of, or nested within other
multipart/related constructs within, the current "multipart/related" ...
Section 8.1 Para. 2
" ... in the same MIME message. "
should read -
... in the same multipart/related construct.
Section 8.2 Item (d)
I'm not sure that the last sentence adds any value, and therefore, I think
that it should be deleted in its entirety.
Section 8.2 Item (e)
The reference to item "(c)" in the first line should be to item (d).
Nick
|
