An investigation of handling of multipart/alternative
in some common mailers in November 2000
draft-palme-multipart-language-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Jacob Palme | ||
| Last updated | 2000-11-13 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This memo describes an investigation of how some common mailers (Eudora, Pine, Hotmail, Outlook Express, Netscape, First Class, KOM 2000) handled the use of multipart/alternative with different languages in the different body parts. None of the mailers handled this very well. It seems as if none of the mailers can actually choose the part in the language preferred by the user. Some of them displayed all language parts, some arbitrarily chose to display only one part. The study compares different methods of specifying language translation in e-mail, but finds that no format seems to give satisfactory results with all the tested mailers.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)