Below is an issue list for the informational document. I do
not think any of these issues are wildly controversial.
However, the decision on whether to publish this document
should not depend on whether it is controversial, but
whether we think it might be useful to future developers.
Even if the first developers, who were probably the most
knowledgeable groups, did not use the document much, future
developers might gain from it.

Section in  Issue description
this draft

    4       Should some more method of communication between html
            viewer and e-mail program be described? Are the methods
            correctly described?

    5       Are there any more problems with rewriting URIs which
            should be described in section 5?

    8       Is it OK to say that senders should not assume that
            recipients will show the value of Content-Description
            inside Multipart/Related (since HTML has other methods of
            showing this, for example the <CAPTION> element?

    9       Should we recommend Multipart/related as done in section 9?

    9       Section 9 describes two ways of using
            Multipart/alternative, 9.1 with Multipart/alternative
            inside Multipart/related, and 9.2 with
            Multipart/alternative outside Multipart/related.

            Note: I have tested with a few existing mailers. Eudora
            4.0.1 puts multipart/related outside multipart/alternative,
            Netscape puts multipart/alternative outside
            multipart/related. I did not know how to put images into a
            message with Outlook Express, so I am not sure how it would
            handle this.

            The advantage with multipart/related outside, as Eudora
            does it, is that the image will be shown to recipients
            whose mailers can handle attachments but not html.

            Should we recommend support for both alternatives or for
            only one of them?

    10      Is the description of pros and cons of mailto versus http
            ACTION element in forms OK?

    11      Section 11 contains the figure which was removed from the
            standard, because people said it was not correct, but which
            I feel described the character encoding issues better than
            the text in the standard. If, however, the figure is still
            incorrect, we should perhaps remove that section?

    12      Is the description about conversion from HTTP to MIME
            correct?

    13      Is the new section 13 on default font size correct?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <[log in to unmask]> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme
Between 26-31 June use phone No. +46-8-664 77 48 not +46-8-16 16 67