Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: MIME types and text versus plain
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Eli the Bearded
Nov 16, 2012, 5:38:41 PM11/16/12
to
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Andreas Prilop <prilo...@trashmail.net> wrote:
This whole thread seems like it would be more appropriate for comp.mail.mime.
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, David Stone wrote:
> > And surely the intent of software that claims to send both
> > plain text and html text versions of a message in an email
> > ought to be that one should be full of tag soup and the
> > other should not?
> No doubt this software is broken and produces nonsense.
> But you are free to produce and send nonsense messages.
> From what you say, I think there is nothing *formally*
> incorrect.
RFC 1521
7.2.3. The Multipart/alternative subtype
The multipart/alternative type is syntactically identical to
multipart/mixed, but the semantics are different. In particular,
each of the parts is an "alternative" version of the same
information.
Systems should recognize that the content of the various parts
are interchangeable.
text/plain
It is wrong to think these two lines are interchangeanble.
text/plain
<p><b>It is wrong to think these two lines are interchangeanble.</b></p>
If the text/plain part doesn't have the same message as an alternative,
then it is wrong. Adding in all sorts of supposed to be hidden mark-up
and calling that a text/plain version is not a "formally correct" version
of multipart/alternative, even if the html itself can be a "formally
correct" text/plain message.
> You cannot argue with RFCs here. Write to the senders
> (and programmers) and explain what is wrong.
> But nothing is *formally wrong*.
You are looking at the RFCs far too narrowly.
Personally, as someone who prefers to use the text/plain version of
multipart/alternative messages, I find it is a very difficult task to
get people to see that the text/plain versions they produce are wrong.
Most people are not interested in the text/plain version and are not
testing the text/plain version and are only dimly aware of the existence
of a text/plain version.
Elijah
------
uses text/plain version of flickr mail to automatically put photos in sets
Andreas Prilop <prilo...@trashmail.net> wrote:
This whole thread seems like it would be more appropriate for comp.mail.mime.
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, David Stone wrote:
> > And surely the intent of software that claims to send both
> > plain text and html text versions of a message in an email
> > ought to be that one should be full of tag soup and the
> > other should not?
> No doubt this software is broken and produces nonsense.
> But you are free to produce and send nonsense messages.
> From what you say, I think there is nothing *formally*
> incorrect.
RFC 1521
7.2.3. The Multipart/alternative subtype
The multipart/alternative type is syntactically identical to
multipart/mixed, but the semantics are different. In particular,
each of the parts is an "alternative" version of the same
information.
Systems should recognize that the content of the various parts
are interchangeable.
text/plain
It is wrong to think these two lines are interchangeanble.
text/plain
<p><b>It is wrong to think these two lines are interchangeanble.</b></p>
If the text/plain part doesn't have the same message as an alternative,
then it is wrong. Adding in all sorts of supposed to be hidden mark-up
and calling that a text/plain version is not a "formally correct" version
of multipart/alternative, even if the html itself can be a "formally
correct" text/plain message.
> You cannot argue with RFCs here. Write to the senders
> (and programmers) and explain what is wrong.
> But nothing is *formally wrong*.
You are looking at the RFCs far too narrowly.
Personally, as someone who prefers to use the text/plain version of
multipart/alternative messages, I find it is a very difficult task to
get people to see that the text/plain versions they produce are wrong.
Most people are not interested in the text/plain version and are not
testing the text/plain version and are only dimly aware of the existence
of a text/plain version.
Elijah
------
uses text/plain version of flickr mail to automatically put photos in sets
0 new messages