Subject: Re: PaceNukeMultipart

From: Kevin Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 02:51:17 -0700

-1

Pretending multimedia posts don't exists is not an answer. If you want
to cede rich media syndication to RSS enclosures this is a fine way to
do it.

---

From: Kevin Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:04:49 -0700

> to cede rich media syndication to RSS enclosures this is a fine way to

To clarify, my -1 vote here is to Tim's original 'Nuke Multipart' suggestion. 

Defining support for rich mediatypes is important. Deleting multipart
sweeps this necessary discussion under the carpet.

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 15:49:02 +0200

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:00:59 -0400, Mark Pilgrim <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Why aren't atom:summary an as good and accessible alternate to
>> atom:content as html:img/@alt or html:object/text()?
>
> For exactly the same reasons that I explained the last time we did this.

Okay, it makes sense. We should look for alternatives, though, since the  
MIME multipart model is way too complex, and at the same time doesn't  
solve all relational problems we have between entries.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»