rfc1341.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

            Network Working Group               N. Borenstein, Bellcore
            Request for Comments: 1341               N. Freed, Innosoft
                                                              June 1992



                   MIME  (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions):


                      Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing
                       the Format of Internet Message Bodies


          Status of this Memo

            This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol  for  the
            Internet  community, and requests discussion and suggestions
            for improvements.  Please refer to the  current  edition  of
            the    "IAB    Official    Protocol   Standards"   for   the
            standardization  state  and   status   of   this   protocol.
            Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

          Abstract

            RFC 822 defines  a  message  representation  protocol  which
            specifies  considerable  detail  about  message headers, but
            which leaves the message content, or message body,  as  flat
            ASCII  text.   This document redefines the format of message
            bodies to allow multi-part textual and  non-textual  message
            bodies  to  be  represented  and  exchanged  without loss of
            information.   This is based on earlier work  documented  in
            RFC  934  and  RFC  1049, but extends and revises that work.
            Because RFC 822 said so little about  message  bodies,  this
            document  is  largely  orthogonal to (rather than a revision
            of) RFC 822.

            In  particular,  this  document  is  designed   to   provide
            facilities  to include multiple objects in a single message,
            to represent body text in  character  sets  other  than  US-
            ASCII,  to  represent formatted multi-font text messages, to
            represent non-textual material  such  as  images  and  audio
            fragments,  and  generally  to  facilitate  later extensions
            defining new types of Internet mail for use  by  cooperating
            mail agents.

            This document does NOT extend Internet mail header fields to
            permit  anything  other  than  US-ASCII  text  data.   It is
            recognized that such extensions are necessary, and they  are
            the subject of a companion document [RFC -1342].

            A table of contents appears at the end of this document.






            Borenstein & Freed                                  [Page i]







            1    Introduction

            Since its publication in 1982, RFC 822 [RFC-822] has defined
            the   standard  format  of  textual  mail  messages  on  the
            Internet.  Its success has been such that the RFC 822 format
            has  been  adopted,  wholly  or  partially,  well beyond the
            confines of the Internet and  the  Internet  SMTP  transport
            defined  by RFC 821 [RFC-821].  As the format has seen wider
            use,  a  number  of  limitations  have  proven  increasingly
            restrictive for the user community.

            RFC 822 was intended to specify a format for text  messages.
            As such, non-text messages, such as multimedia messages that
            might include audio or images,  are  simply  not  mentioned.
            Even in the case of text, however, RFC 822 is inadequate for
            the needs of mail users whose languages require the  use  of
            character  sets  richer  than US ASCII [US-ASCII]. Since RFC
            822 does not specify mechanisms for mail  containing  audio,
            video,  Asian  language  text, or even text in most European
            languages, additional specifications are needed

            One of the notable limitations of  RFC  821/822  based  mail
            systems  is  the  fact  that  they  limit  the  contents  of
            electronic  mail  messages  to  relatively  short  lines  of
            seven-bit  ASCII.   This  forces  users  to convert any non-
            textual data that they may wish to send into seven-bit bytes
            representable  as printable ASCII characters before invoking
            a local mail UA (User Agent,  a  program  with  which  human
            users  send  and  receive  mail). Examples of such encodings
            currently used in the  Internet  include  pure  hexadecimal,
            uuencode,  the  3-in-4 base 64 scheme specified in RFC 1113,
            the Andrew Toolkit Representation [ATK], and many others.

            The limitations of RFC 822 mail become even more apparent as
            gateways  are  designed  to  allow  for the exchange of mail
            messages between RFC 822 hosts and X.400 hosts. X.400 [X400]
            specifies  mechanisms  for the inclusion of non-textual body
            parts  within  electronic  mail   messages.    The   current
            standards  for  the  mapping  of  X.400  messages to RFC 822
            messages specify that either X.400  non-textual  body  parts
            should  be converted to (not encoded in) an ASCII format, or
            that they should be discarded, notifying the  RFC  822  user
            that  discarding has occurred.  This is clearly undesirable,
            as information that a user may  wish  to  receive  is  lost.
            Even  though  a  user's  UA  may  not have the capability of
            dealing with the non-textual body part, the user might  have
            some  mechanism  external  to the UA that can extract useful
            information from the body part.  Moreover, it does not allow
            for  the  fact  that the message may eventually be gatewayed
            back into an X.400 message handling system (i.e., the  X.400
            message  is  "tunneled"  through  Internet  mail), where the
            non-textual  information  would  definitely  become   useful
            again.




            Borenstein & Freed                                  [Page 1]




            RFC 1341MIME: Multipurpose Internet Mail ExtensionsJune 1992


            This document describes several mechanisms that  combine  to
            solve most of these problems without introducing any serious
            incompatibilities with the existing world of RFC  822  mail.
            In particular, it describes:

            1.  A MIME-Version header field, which uses a version number
                 to  declare  a  message  to  be  conformant  with  this
                 specification and  allows  mail  processing  agents  to
                 distinguish  between  such messages and those generated
                 by older or non-conformant software, which is  presumed
                 to lack such a field.

            2.  A Content-Type header field, generalized from  RFC  1049
                 [RFC-1049],  which  can be used to specify the type and
                 subtype of data in the body of a message and  to  fully
                 specify  the  native  representation (encoding) of such
                 data.

                 2.a.  A "text" Content-Type value, which can be used to
                      represent  textual  information  in  a  number  of
                      character  sets  and  formatted  text  description
                      languages in a standardized manner.

                 2.b.  A "multipart" Content-Type value,  which  can  be
                      used  to  combine  several body parts, possibly of
                      differing types of data, into a single message.

                 2.c.  An "application" Content-Type value, which can be
                      used  to transmit application data or binary data,
                      and hence,  among  other  uses,  to  implement  an
                      electronic mail file transfer service.

                 2.d.  A "message" Content-Type value, for encapsulating
                      a mail message.

                 2.e  An "image"  Content-Type value,  for  transmitting
                      still image (picture) data.

                 2.f.  An "audio"  Content-Type value, for  transmitting
                      audio or voice data.

                 2.g.  A "video"  Content-Type value,  for  transmitting
                      video or moving image data, possibly with audio as
                      part of the composite video data format.

            3.  A Content-Transfer-Encoding header field, which  can  be
                 used  to specify an auxiliary encoding that was applied
                 to the data in order to allow it to pass  through  mail
                 transport  mechanisms  which may have data or character
                 set limitations.

            4.  Two optional header fields that can be used  to  further
                 describe the data in a message body, the Content-ID and
                 Content-Description header fields.



            Borenstein & Freed                                  [Page 2]




            RFC 1341MIME: Multipurpose Internet Mail ExtensionsJune 1992


            MIME has been carefully designed as an extensible mechanism,
            and  it  is  expected  that  the set of content-type/subtype
            pairs   and   their   associated   parameters   will    grow
            significantly with time.  Several other MIME fields, notably
            including character set names, are likely to have new values
            defined  over time.  In order to ensure that the set of such
            values is  developed  in  an  orderly,  well-specified,  and
            public  manner,  MIME  defines  a registration process which
            uses the Internet Assigned Numbers  Authority  (IANA)  as  a
            central  registry  for  such  values.   Appendix  F provides
            details about how IANA registration is accomplished.

            Finally, to specify and promote interoperability, Appendix A
            of  this  document  provides a basic applicability statement
            for a subset of the above mechanisms that defines a  minimal
            level of "conformance" with this document.

            HISTORICAL NOTE:  Several of  the  mechanisms  described  in
            this  document  may seem somewhat strange or even baroque at
            first reading.  It is important to note  that  compatibility
            with  existing  standards  AND  robustness  across  existing
            practice were two of the highest priorities of  the  working
            group   that   developed   this  document.   In  particular,
            compatibility was always favored over elegance.

            2    Notations, Conventions, and Generic BNF Grammar

            This document is being published in  two  versions,  one  as
            plain  ASCII  text  and  one  as  PostScript.  The latter is
            recommended, though the textual contents are  identical.  An
            Andrew-format  copy  of this document is also available from
            the first author (Borenstein).

            Although the mechanisms specified in this document  are  all
            described  in prose, most are also described formally in the
            modified BNF notation of RFC 822.  Implementors will need to
            be  familiar  with this notation in order to understand this
            specification, and are referred to RFC 822  for  a  complete
            explanation of the modified BNF notation.

            Some of the modified BNF in this document makes reference to
            syntactic  entities  that  are defined in RFC 822 and not in
            this document.  A complete formal grammar, then, is obtained
            by combining the collected grammar appendix of this document
            with that of RFC 822.

            The term CRLF, in this document, refers to the  sequence  of
            the  two  ASCII  characters CR (13) and LF (10) which, taken
            together, in this order, denote a  line  break  in  RFC  822
            mail.

            The term "character  set",  wherever  it  is  used  in  this
            document,  refers  to a coded character set, in the sense of
            ISO character set standardization  work,  and  must  not  be



            Borenstein & Freed                                  [Page 3]




            RFC 1341MIME: Multipurpose Internet Mail ExtensionsJune 1992


            misinterpreted as meaning "a set of characters."