On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > In other words, I think the suggestion here is to count attachments > from only ONE of the alternatives, not from all of the alternatives, > because to count attachments in ALL of the alternatives is > equivalent to being show multiple versions of the same data.
Hm, I don't think that there is a suggestion about counting attachments. But anyway, you could as well argue that all those versions should be counted which could be displayed. However, all this won't have to do much with counting attachments. Maybe "attachment" isn't something that should be counted at all because there can be so much disagreement about what an "attachment" is and under what circumstances it should be counted or not. > Of course, this is complicated by the preceeding paragraph: > > In the case where one of the alternatives is itself of type > "multipart" and contains unrecognized sub-parts, the user agent > may choose either to show that alternative, an earlier > alternative, or both. > > It doesn't say what to do if multiple alternatives are of type > "multipart", and showing "both" seems to directly contradict "what is > most critical" a mere few sentences later. When sub-parts are unrecognizable, it makes sense to allow showing several alternatives because the MUA may not be able to determine which of the alternatives it should show since it contains parts the MUA cannot recognize. And how does a MUA show unrecognizable parts of a message?
