Re: [MMUSIC] File transfer issue 49: multipart/mixed or multipart/related

[Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com>]

On 8/10/07 11:41 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> > The difference between both is subtle, in my opinion. The 
> > multipart/related definition says that "proper display cannot be 
> > achieved by individually displayign the constituent body parts", 
> > which is not entirely true: SDP will be meaningful in the absence of 
> > an icon; the icon is also meaningful isolated, although it is not 
> > linked to any file descriptor.
>
> I agree that in this case the parts don't seem to be related.

But they are -- the SDP contains a CID URI that indicates the related 
part that corresponds to a specific MSRP m= line.

> Is there another multipart subtype that is like mixed except without 
> ordering? (multipart/unordered?) I've not heard of such a thing. If 
> not it seems that mixed must be used even when ordering isn't important.

You're describing multipart/parallel, which would be appropriate if the 
parts actually _were_ unrelated and unordered. However, in this case, 
they *are* related (one part containing a CID indicating another part is 
sort of the dictionary definition of being related) so 
multipart/parallel is also inappropriate.

/a

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic