Re: [Slim] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

What I am keying off of is this:

   In order for the message to be received and displayed in non-
   conforming email clients, the message SHOULD contain an explanatory
   message part which MUST NOT be marked with a Content-Language field
   and MUST be the first of the message parts.

Why do we require this to be first if it's not special?

-Ekr



On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017, at 01:59 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Ekr,
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: No Objection
>
> > As I understand it, this is designed so that if you have an MUA which
> > doesn't understand this document you get the preface as the first
> > thing you see. That doesn't seem crazy, but isn't the common case that
> > you have one preferred language that most recipients speak and then
> > some translations. Wouldn't it make sense to at least allow people to
> > have that be what non-updated MUAs display?
>
> According to MIME (one of RFCs 2045-2047) any unrecognized multipart
> subtypes must be treated as multipart/mixed, so all body parts will be
> displayed. Beyond that there is no control of which specific body part a
> non compliant client will display.
>
>
> Sure, but it seems like there's a clear assumption in this document that
> the
> first part will be displayed first (otherwise why the requirement)
>
> Can you point me to the specific text which is confusing or misleading?
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
>
>
> > That seems at least
> > disfavored if not impossible (because I can't tag that one with
> > its actual language). Am I missing something?
> >
> >
>
>
>