Re: Proposed Text for RFC2445 Issue #1

Eric Busboom wrote:

> You're right. I don't really like additional rules either. However, I
> still think it is important to keep file names for attached data
> consistent between organizers and attendees. If my suggestions will not
> get us there, can you suggest something that will?

How about this:

   * Deprecate the inline-binary syntax for ATTACH, in favor of using data: URIs (RFC-2397).
   * Write a document extending data: URIs to permit arbitrary Content-* headers (a Good
     Thing for many purposes, not just calendaring; for example, tagging inline content with
     Content-Language).
   * Now, if you want to send an inline attachment with a filename, use a data: URI with a
     Content-Disposition.

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |There are footprints on the moon. No feet, just|
|francis <at> ecal.com|footprints.                                    |
\================================================================/