Network Working Group Jacob Palme Internet Draft Stockholm University/KTH draft-ietf-mhtml-info-11.txt Category-to-be: Informational Expires: September 1998 March 1999 Sending HTML in MIME, an informational supplement to the RFC: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML) Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1998. All Rights Reserved. 1. Abstract The memo "MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)" (draft-ietf-mhtml-rev-05.txt) specifies how to send packaged aggregate HTML objects in MIME format. This memo is an accompanying informational document, intended to be an aid to developers. This document is not an Internet standard. Issues discussed are implementation methods, caching strategies, problems with rewriting of URIs, making messages suitable both for mailers which can and which cannot handle Multipart/related and handling recipients which do not have full Internet connectivity. The latest version of this document is available in HTML format at: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/mhtml-info.html Differences from the previous versions 9 and 10 of this draft (1) A paragraph about one disadvantage with MAILTO action elements has been added to section 10. (2) A new section 13: Default font size has been added (3) A new temporary section "Issue list" immediately below has been added Issue list Section in Issue description this draft 4 Should some more method of communication between html viewer and e-mail program be described? Are the methods correctly described? 5 Are there any more problems with rewriting URIs which should be described in section 5? 8 Is it OK to say that senders should not assume that recipients will show the value of Content-Description inside Multipart/Related (since HTML has other methods of showing this, for example the