From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Uwe Brauer Subject: Re: org-mime-htmlize: visual representation (thunderbird) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:59:38 +0200 Message-ID: <87bomxxis5.fsf@mat.ucm.es> References: <87ehsei9zj.fsf@gilgamesch.quim.ucm.es> <8762dky9pt.fsf@gmx.com> <4F787201.2020403@mat.ucm.es> <87wr5zjtje.fsf@gmx.com> <871unv7ncy.fsf@gilgamesch.quim.ucm.es> <87d37e6gmd.fsf@gmx.com> <878vi2k3h3.fsf@gilgamesch.quim.ucm.es> <87vcl64cd5.fsf@gmx.com> Reply-To: Uwe Brauer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50629) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SIIh9-0002iL-Pd for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:00:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SIIgz-0005Pk-Cn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:00:11 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:48417) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SIIgz-0005Pb-5q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:00:01 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SIIgv-0000t0-0w for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:59:57 +0200 Received: from pclab-228.mat.ucm.es ([147.96.18.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:59:57 +0200 Received: from oub by pclab-228.mat.ucm.es with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:59:57 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Cc: ding@gnus.org >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:38:46 -0400, Eric Schulte wrote: > Hi Uwe, > Uwe Brauer writes: >> > OK, for my own edification I had changed the message body from > (I'm hoping these are sufficiently quoted to survive mailing) > ,----[original] > | > | > | text alternative... > | > | html alternative... | > | images for html... > `---- > to > ,----[revised (and more broken in TB)] > | > | > | text alternative... > | > | > | html alternative... > | images for html... > | > | > `---- > which wraps the html and images into a multipart/related type. > Why is this later structure illegal? Are nested multi type parts not > allowed? Also, it seems that everything I've tried works in gnus and in > most web user agents. Is thunderbird simply a stickler for the letter > of the RFC law? I cannot answer this. However I rechecked everything and the issue is the following. >> >> Which brings me to the good news. After I wrote to you >> I received a message from the TB developers which >> emphasised that, besides the information I have gave >> you, the main point is the header, which should be >> >> Content-type: multipart/related; boundary="=-=-=" >> and the thunderbird developers insist that this is the >> RFC 2387 standard. >> >> Gnus actually generate via the mml-generate-mime function >> the header >> Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" >> which is wrong. >> > OK, I've just reverted my change, but I'm keeping the change of image > disposition to "inline". I own you an apology! If I leave mml-generate-mime untouched, that is I neither use my modification nor do I use use Lars new code, but I use your *new* code then the generated and sent message is displayed *correctly* in thunderbird. The resulting message contains Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-=-=" Instead of Content-type: multipart/related; boundary="=-=-=" As it would in my case, but it seems that thunderbird is OK with that. The reason I wrote you earlier that your changes made things worse was that I did make a mistake in my modification of mml-generate-mime. I also thought I checked your code with the old mml function but for some reason the old version was not used even after a restart. Sorry for the trouble! Uwe