Re: [Sip] MESSAGE for rendering

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:54 PM
>> To: Hadriel Kaplan
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Sip] MESSAGE for rendering
>>
>> Hadriel,
>>
>> I am entirely with you if the *intent* of sending the vcard is to render
>> it to the user in some human readable way. Its hardly any different from
>> sending HTML.
>>
>> Its much more questionable if the intent is that the vcard be filed in
>> the recipients address book without being rendered.
>>
>> Even so, I think it is an open question whether content-dispositions
>> other than "render" are valid with MESSAGE. And if so, which ones?
> 
> I guess the question is if "render" is synonymous with "inline", as 3261 sounds like it is? 

I'm not very well informed of MIME, but I question whether "render" is 
synononymous with "inline". Rather I suspect "render" was chosen because 
"inline" didn't make sense for SIP.

My impression is that with mail "inline" is used for "extra" body parts 
to indicate that they should be rendered "inline" with the rendering of 
the overall message, which makes sense since for mail the expectation is 
that the overall message *is* being rendered. So the headers of the 
message are rendered (usually not literally, but rather in a pretty 
way), and the body parts marked inline are rendered inline with that.

In the case of sip, the overall message is *not* being rendered, at 
least not in the case of INVITE. (At the time this was being defined 
MESSAGE wasn't in the picture.)

If "render" were used with a body part in an invite, then I think it 
makes sense to expect that the UA goes out of its way to present it to 
the user of the device in some way - unusual because most invites don't 
have this.

If somebody had thought about it at the time, MESSAGE should probably 
have been handled just like mail, using "inline" and "attachment", etc. 
But I guess for purposes of MESSAGE we might be able to treat inline and 
render as synonymous.

> If so, then I think you're right "render" is wrong.  How is it done in email?  I think content-disposition "attachment" vs. inline.  So yeah, the question is if MESSAGE can handle non-render ones.  (clearly "session" would NOT be valid :)

Attachment could be good for a vcard in a MESSAGE. But it might be a bit 
strange without also having an inline or render part as well. (Just as 
it would be strange to get an email that only had "attachment" parts - 
there is nothing to attach them to.)

So you might have a MESSAGE that says: "Here is my vcard." and has the 
vcard as an attachment.

	Paul

> -hadriel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
> Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip
> 


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip