Network Working Group                                       Jacob Palme
Internet Draft                                 Stockholm University/KTH
draft-ietf-mhtml-spec-01.txt                          Alexander Hopmann
Category-to-be: Proposed standard                ResNova Software, Inc.
Expires: January 1997                                         July 1996




MIME E-mail Encapsulation of Aggregate HTML Documents (MHTML)



Status of this Document


This document is an Internet-Draft. 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.''

To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).


Abstract

Although HTML [RFC 1866] was designed within the context of MIME, more
than the specification of HTML as defined in RFC 1866 is needed for two
electronic mail user agents to be able to interoperate using HTML as a
document format. These issues include the naming of objects that are
normally referred to by URIs, and the means of aggregating objects that
go together. This document describes a set of guidelines that will allow
conforming mail user agents to be able to send, deliver and display
these HTML objects. In addition it is hoped that these techniques will
also apply to the wider category of URI-enabled objects. In order to do
this, the document specifies the MIME content-headers "Content-Location"
and "Content-Base".











Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft       [Page 1]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Terminology
   2.1 Conformance requirement terminology
   2.2 Other terminology
4. The Content-Location and Content-Base MIME Content Headers
   4.1 MIME content headers
   4.2 The Content-Base header
   4.3 The Content-Location Header
   4.4 Encoding of URIs in e-mail headers
5. Base URIs for resolution of relative URIs
6. Sending HTML documents without linked objects
7. Use of the Content-Type: Multipart/related
8. Format of Links to Other Body Parts
   8.1 General principle
   8.2 Use of the Content-Location header
   8.3 Use of the Content-ID header and CID URLs
9 Examples
   9.1 Example of a HTML body without included linked objects
   9.3 Example with relative URIs to an embedded GIF picture
   9.4 Example using CID URL and Content-ID header to an embedded GIF
        picture
10. Content-Disposition header
11. Encoding Considerations for HTML bodies
   11.1 Character set issues
   11.2 Line break characters
12. Security Considerations
13. Acknowledgments
14. References
15. Author's Address


Mailing List Information

Further discussion on this document should be done through the mailing
list MHTML@SEGATE.SUNET.SE.

To subscribe to this list, send a message to
   LISTSERV@SEGATE.SUNET.SE
which contains the text
SUB MHTML <your name (not your e-mail address)>

Archives of this list are available by anonymous ftp from
   FTP://SEGATE.SUNET.SE/lists/mHTML/
The archives are also available by e-mail. Send a message to
LISTSERV@SEGATE.SUNET.SE with the text "INDEX MHTML" to get a list of
the archive files, and then a new message "GET <file name>" to retrieve
the archive files.

Comments on less important details may also be sent to the editor, Jacob
Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>.

More information may also be available at URL:
HTTP://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/jp-ietf-home.HTML>

Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft       [Page 2]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

1. Introduction

The HTML format is a very common format for documents in the Internet,
and there is an obvious need to be able to send documents in this format
in e-mail [RFC821=SMTP, RFC822]. The "text/html" media type is defined
in RFC 1866 [HTML2]. This document gives additional specifications on
how to use the text/html media type as a Content-Type in MIME [RFC
1521=MIME1] e-mail messages. HTML documents commonly include links to
other objects and resources, either embedded or directly accessible
through hypertext links. When mailing a HTML document, it is often
desirable to also mail all of the additional resources that are
referenced in it; those elements are necessary for the complete
interpretation of the HTML.

An alternative way for sending HTML documents in e-mail is to only send
the URL, and let the recipient look up the document using HTTP. That
method is described in [URLBODY] and is not described in this document.


2. Terminology

2.1 Conformance requirement terminology

This specification uses the same words as RFC 1123 [HOSTS] for defining
the significance of each particular requirement. These words are:


MUST    This word or the adjective "required" means that the item is
        an absolute requirement of the specification.

SHOULD  This word or the adjective "recommended" means that there may
        exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this
        item, but the full implications should be understood and the
        case carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

MAY     This word or the adjective "optional" means that this item is
        truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item
        because a particular marketplace requires it or because it
        enhances the product, for example; another vendor may omit the
        same item.

An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of
the MUST requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation
that satisfies all the MUST and all the SHOULD requirements for its
protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies
all the MUST requirements but not all the SHOULD requirements for its
protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."








Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft       [Page 3]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

2.2 Other terminology

Most of the terms used in this document are defined in other RFCs.

Absolute URI,         See RFC 1808 [RELURL].
AbsoluteURI

CID                   See [MIDCID].

Content-Base          See section 4.2 below.

Content-ID            See [MIDCID].

Content-Location      MIME message or content part header with the URI of
                      the MIME message or content part body, defined in
                      section 4.3 below.

CR                    See [RFC822].

CRLF                  See [RFC822].

Header                Field in a message or content heading specifying
                      the value of one attribute.

Heading               Part of a message or content before the first
                      CRLFCRLF, containing formatted fields with
                      attributes of the message or content.

HTML                  See RFC 1866 [HTML2].

HTML Aggregate        HTML objects together with some or all objects, to
objects               which the HTML object contains hyperlinks.

LF                    See [RFC822].

MIC                   Message Integrity Codes, codes use to verify that a
                      message has not been illegally modified.

MIME                  See RFC 1521 [MIME1], [MIME2].

MUA                   Messaging User Agent.

Relative URI,         See RFC 1866 [HTML2] and RFC 1808[RELURL].
RelativeURI

URI, absolute and     See RFC 1866 [HTML2].
relative

URL                   See RFC 1738 [URL].

URL, relative         See [RELURL].




Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft       [Page 4]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996


3. Overview

An aggregate HTML object is a MIME-encoded message that contains a root
document as well as other data that is required in order to represent
that document (inline pictures, style sheets, applets, etc.). Aggregate
HTML objects can also include additional elements that are linked to the
first object.  It is important to keep in mind the differing needs of
several audiences. Mail sending agents might send aggregate HTML objects
as an encoding of normal day-to-day electronic mail. Mail sending agents
might also send aggregate HTML objects when a user wishes to mail a
particular document from the web to someone else. Finally mail sending
agents might send aggregate HTML documents as automatic responders,
providing access to WWW resources for non-IP connected clients.

Mail receiving agents also have several differing needs. Some mail
receiving agents might be able to receive an aggregate HTML document and
display it just as any other text content type would be displayed.
Others might have to pass this aggregate HTML document to an HTML
browsing program, and provisions need to be made to make this possible.

Finally several other constraints on the problem arise. It is important
that it be possible for an HTML document to be signed and for it to be
able to be transmitted to a client and displayed with a minimum risk of
breaking the message integrity (MIC) check that is part of the
signature.


4. The Content-Location and Content-Base MIME Content Headers

4.1 MIME content headers

In order to resolve URI references to other body parts, two MIME content
headers are defined, Content-Location and Content-Base. Both these
headers can occur in any message or content heading, and will then be
valid within this heading and for its content.

In practice, at present only those URIs which are URLs are used, but it
is anticipated that other forms of URIs will in the future be used.

The syntax for these headers is, using the syntax definition tools from
[RFC822]:

    content-location ::= "Content-Location:" ( absoluteURI | relativeURI
)

    content-base ::= "Content-Base:" absoluteURI

where URI is at present (June 1996) restricted to the syntax for URLs as
defined in RFC 1738 [URL].

These two headers are valid only for exactly the content heading or
message heading where they occurs and its text. They are thus not valid
for the parts inside multipart headings, and are thus meaningless in
multipart headings.

Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft       [Page 5]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

These two headers may occur both inside and outside of a
Multipart/Related part.

4.2 The Content-Base header

The Content-Base gives a base for relative URIs occurring in other
heading fields and in content which do not have any BASE element in its
HTML code. Its value MUST be an absolute URI.

Example showing which Content-Base is valid where:

   Content-Type: Multipart/related; boundary="boundary-example-1";
                 type=Text/HTML; start=foo2*foo3@bar2.net
    ; A Content-Base header cannot be placed here, since this is a
    ; multipart MIME object.

   --boundary-example-1

   Part 1:
   Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=US-ASCII
   Content-ID: foo2*foo3@bar2.net
   Content-Location: "http/www.ietf.cnir.reston.va.us/images/foo1.bar1"
;
   ;  This Content-Location must contain an absolute URI, since no base
   ;  is valid here.

   --boundary-example-1

   Part 2:
   Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=US-ASCII
   Content-ID: foo4*foo5@bar2.net
   Content-Location: "foo1.bar1" ; The Content-Base below applies to
                                 ; this relative URI
   Content-Base: "http:/www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/images/"

   --boundary-example-1--

4.3 The Content-Location Header

The Content-Location header specifies the URI that corresponds to the
content of the body part in whose heading the header is placed. Its
value CAN be an absolute or relative URI. Any URI or URL scheme may be
used, but use of non-standardized URI or URL schemes might entail some
risk that recipients cannot handle them correctly.

The Content-Location header can be used to indicate that the data sent
under this heading is also retrievable, in identical format, through
normal use of this URI. If used for this purpose, it must contain an
absolute URI or be resolvable, through a Content-Base header, into an
absolute URI. In this case, the information sent in the message can be
seen as a cached version of the original data.




Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft       [Page 6]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

The header can also be used for data which is not available to some or
all recipients of the message, for example if the header refers to an
object which is only retrievable using this URI in a restricted domain,
such as within a company-internal web space. The header can even contain
a fictious URI and need in that case not be globally unique.

Example:

Content-Type: Multipart/related; boundary="boundary-example-1";
                 type=Text/HTML

   --boundary-example-1

   Part 1:
   Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=US-ASCII

   ... ... <IMG SRC="fiction1/fiction2"> ... ...

   --boundary-example-1

   Part 2:
   Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=US-ASCII
   Content-Location: "fiction1/fiction2"

   --boundary-example-1--


4.4 Encoding of URIs in e-mail headers

Since MIME header fields have a limited length and URIs can get quite
long, these lines may have to be folded. If such folding is done, the
algorithm defined in [URLBODY] section 3.1 should be employed.


5. Base URIs for resolution of relative URIs

Relative URIs inside contents of MIME body parts are resolved relative
to a base URI. In order to determine this base URI, the first-listed
method in the following list applies.

  (a) There is a base specification inside the MIME body part
       containing the link which resolves relative URIs into absolute
       URIs. For example, HTML provides the BASE element for this.

  (b) There is a Content-Base header (as defined in section 4.2),
       specifying the base to be used.

  (c) There is a Content-Location header in the heading of the body
       part which can then serve as the base in the same way as the
       request URI can serve as a base for relative URIs within a file
       retrieved via HTTP [HTTP].




Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft       [Page 7]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

6. Sending HTML documents without linked objects

If an HTML document is sent without other objects, to which it is
linked, it MAY be sent as a Text/HTML body part by itself. In this case,
Multipart/related need not be used.

Such a document may either not include any links, or contain links which
the recipient resolves via ordinary net look up, or contain links which
the recipient cannot resolve.

Inclusion of links which the recipient has to look up through the net
may not work for some recipients, since all e-mail recipients do not
have full internet connectivity. Also, such links may work for the
sender but not for the recipient, for example when the link refers to an
URL within a company-internal network not accessible from outside the
company.

Note that documents with links that the recipient cannot resolve MAY be
sent, although this is discouraged. For example, two persons developing
a new HTML page may exchange incomplete versions.


7. Use of the Content-Type: Multipart/related

The use of URI references creates some additional issues for aggregate
HTML objects. Normal URI references can of course be used, however it is
likely that many user agents may not be able to retrieve those objects
referred to. This document provides a means for these additional objects
to be transmitted with the HTML and for the links between these objects
to be properly resolved.

If a message contains one or more Text/HTML body parts and also contains
as separate body parts, data, to which hyperlinks (as defined in RFC
1866 [HTML2]) in the Text/HTML body parts refers, then this set of
objects SHOULD be sent within a Multipart/Related body part as defined
in [REL].

The root of the Multipart/related SHOULD be of the Content-Type:
Text/HTML. Use of the Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative, one of whose
parts is of Content-Type: Text/HTML, is also allowed, but implementors
are warned that many mail programs treat Multipart/Alternative as if it
had been Multipart/Mixed (even though MIME [MIME1] requires support for
Multipart/Alternative).

If the root is not the first body part within the Multipart/related, its
Content-ID MUST be given in a start parameter to the Content-Type:
Multipart/Related header.

When presenting the root body part to the user, the additional body
parts within the Multipart/related can be used:

    (a) For those recipients who only have e-mail but not full Internet
        access.


Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft       [Page 8]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

    (b) For those recipients who for other reasons, such as firewalls
        or the use of company-internal links, cannot retrieve the
        linked body parts through the net.

       Note that this means that you can, via e-mail, send HTML which
        includes URIs which the recipient cannot resolve via HTTPor
        other connectivity-requiring URIs.

    (c) For items which are not available on the web.

    (d) For any recipient to speed up access.

The type parameter of the Content-Type: Multipart/related MUST be the
same as the Content-Type of its root.

When a sending MUA sends objects which were retrieved from the WWW, it
SHOULD maintain their WWW URIs. It SHOULD not transform these URIs into
some other URI form prior to transmitting them. This will allow the
receiving MUA to both verify MICs included with the email message, as
well as verify the documents against their WWW counterpoints.

The Text/HTML body MAY contain links to MIME body parts outside of the
Multipart/Related or in other messages, but such usage is discouraged.
Implementors are warned that many receiving mailers may not be able to
resolve such links.

Within such a Multipart/related, ALL different parts MUST have different
Content-Location or Content-ID values.


8. Format of Links to Other Body Parts

8.1 General principle

A Text/HTML body part may contain hyperlinks to objects which are
included as other body parts in the same message and within the same
multipart/related content. Often such linked objects are meant to be
displayed inline to the reader of the main document. HTML version 2.0
[RFC 1866=HTML2] has only one way of specifying hyperlinks to such
inline embedded content, the IMG tag. New tags with this property are
however proposed in the ongoing development of HTML (example: applet,
frame).

In order to send such messages, there is a need to indicate which other
body parts are referred to by the links in the Text/HTML body parts.
This is done in the following way: For each distinct URI in the
Text/HTML document, which refers to data which is sent in the same MIME
message, there SHOULD be a separate body part within the
multipart/related part of the message containing this data. Each such
body part SHOULD contain a Content-Location header (see section 8.2) or
a Content-ID header (see section 8.3).

An e-mail system which claims conformance to this standard MUST support
receipt of Multipart/related (as defined in section 7) with links
between body parts using both the Content-Location (as defined in
section 8.2) and the Content-ID method (as defined in section 8.3).

Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft       [Page 9]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

8.2 Use of the Content-Location header

If there is a Content-Base header, then the recipient MUST employ
relative to absolute resolution as defined in RFC 1808 [RELURL] of URIs
in both the HTML markup and the Content-Location header before matching
a hyperlink in the HTML markup to a Content-Location header. The same
applies if the Content-Location contains an absolute URL, and the HTML
markup contains a BASE element so that relative URL-s in the HTML markup
can be resolved.

If there is NO Content-Base header, and the Content-Location header
contains a relative URL, then NO relative to absolute resolution SHOULD
be performed (even if there is a BASE element in the HTML markup), and
exact textual match of the relative URL-s in the Content-Location and
the HTML markup is performed instead (after removal of LWSP introduced
as described in section 4.4 above).

The URI in the Content-Location header need not refer to an object which
is actually available globally for retrieval using this URI (after
resolution of relative URIs).

8.3 Use of the Content-ID header and CID URLs

When CID (Content-ID) URLs as defined in RFC 1738 [URL] and RFC 1873
[MIDCID] is used for links between body parts, the Content-Location
statement will normally be replaced by a Content-ID header. Thus, the
following two headers are identical in meaning:

Content-ID: foo@bar.net
Content-Location: CID: foo@bar.net

Note: Content-IDs MUST be globally unique [MIME1]. It is thus not
permitted to make them unique only within this message or within this
multipart/related.


9 Examples

9.1 Example of a HTML body without included linked objects

The first example is the simplest form of an HTML email message. This is
not an aggregate HTML object, but simply one by itself. This message
contains a hyperlink but does not provide the ability to resolve the
hyperlink. To resolve the hyperlink the receiving client would need
either IP access to the Internet, or an electronic mail web gateway.

   From: foo1@bar.net
   To: foo2@bar.net
   Subject: A simple example
   Mime-Version: 1.0
   Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=US-ASCII




Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft      [Page 10]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

   <HTML>
   <head></head>
   <body>
   <h1>Hi there!</h1>
   An example of an HTML message.<p>
   Try clicking <a href="http://www.resnova.com/">here.</a><p>
   </body></HTML>

9.2 Example with absolute URIs to an embedded GIF picture:

From: foo1@bar.net
   To: foo2@bar.net
   Subject: A simple example
   Mime-Version: 1.0
   Content-Type: Multipart/related; boundary="boundary-example-1";
                 type=Text/HTML; start=foo3*foo1@bar.net

--boundary-example 1
      Content-Type: Text/HTML;charset=US-ASCII
      Content-ID: foo3*foo1@bar.net

      ... text of the HTML document, which might contain a hyperlink
      to the other body part, for example through a statement such as:
      <IMG SRC="http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/images/ietflogo.gif"
       ALT="IETF logo">

      --boundary-example-1
      Content-Location:
            "http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/images/ietflogo.gif"
      Content-Type: IMAGE/GIF
      Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64

      R0lGODlhGAGgAPEAAP/////ZRaCgoAAAACH+PUNvcHlyaWdodCAoQykgMTk5
      NSBJRVRGLiBVbmF1dGhvcml6ZWQgZHVwbGljYXRpb24gcHJvaGliaXRlZC4A
      etc...

      --boundary-example-1--

9.3 Example with relative URIs to an embedded GIF picture

   From: foo1@bar.net
   To: foo2@bar.net
   Subject: A simple example
   Mime-Version: 1.0
   Content-Base: "http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us"
   Content-Type: Multipart/related; boundary="boundary-example-1";
                 type=Text/HTML

      --boundary-example 1
      Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=ISO-8859-1
      Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE



Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft      [Page 11]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

      ... text of the HTML document, which might contain a hyperlink
      to the other body part, for example through a statement such as:
      <IMG SRC="/images/ietflogo.gif" ALT="IETF logo">
      Example of a copyright sign encoded with Quoted-Printable: =A9
      Example of a copyright sign mapped onto HTML markup: &#168;

      --boundary-example-1
      Content-Location: "/images/ietflogo.gif"
      Content-Type: IMAGE/GIF
      Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64

      R0lGODlhGAGgAPEAAP/////ZRaCgoAAAACH+PUNvcHlyaWdodCAoQykgMTk5
      NSBJRVRGLiBVbmF1dGhvcml6ZWQgZHVwbGljYXRpb24gcHJvaGliaXRlZC4A
      etc...

      --boundary-example-1--

9.4 Example using CID URL and Content-ID header to an embedded GIF
picture

   From: foo1@bar.net
   To: foo2@bar.net
   Subject: A simple example
   Mime-Version: 1.0
   Content-Type: Multipart/related; boundary="boundary-example-1";
                 type=Text/HTML

      --boundary-example 1
      Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=US-ASCII

      ... text of the HTML document, which might contain a hyperlink
      to the other body part, for example through a statement such as:
      <IMG SRC="cid:foo4*foo1@bar.net" ALT="IETF logo">

      --boundary-example-1
      Content-ID: foo4*foo1@bar.net
      Content-Type: IMAGE/GIF
      Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64

      R0lGODlhGAGgAPEAAP/////ZRaCgoAAAACH+PUNvcHlyaWdodCAoQykgMTk5
      NSBJRVRGLiBVbmF1dGhvcml6ZWQgZHVwbGljYXRpb24gcHJvaGliaXRlZC4A
      etc...

      --boundary-example-1--


10. Content-Disposition header

Note the specification in [REL] on the relations between Content-
Disposition and Multipart/Related.





Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft      [Page 12]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

11. Encoding Considerations for HTML bodies

11.1 Character set issues

A mail user agent that is composing a message using HTML has a choice in
how to represent and subsequently encode characters for the transmission
of the mail message.

However, there are some differences as to the default character
encoding, specified by the MIME "charset" parameter. If this parameter
is omitted: When transferred through HTTP, the default is [HTTP]:
          content-type: Text/HTML; charset=ISO-8859-1
When transferred via e-mail, the default is [MIME1]:
          content-type: Text/HTML; charset=US-ASCII

To avoid confusion, the MIME Content-Type parameter for Text/HTML SHOULD
always include a charset value, and not rely on the MIME e-mail default
of US-ASCII if no charset value is specified.

When sending HTML via MIME e-mail, three layers of encoding are relevant
as shown in Figure 1:


Displayed text                       Displayed text
      |                                    ^
      V                                    |
+-------------+                      +----------------+
| HTML editor |                      | HTML viewer    |
|             |                      | or Web browser |
+-------------+                      +----------------+
      |                                    ^
      V                                    |
HTML markup                          HTML markup
      |                                    ^
      V                                    |
+------------------+                 +-------------------+
| MIME content-    |                 | MIME content-     |
| transfer-encoder |                 | transfer-encoder  |
+------------------+                 +-------------------+
      |                                    ^
      V              +-----------+         |
transfer-encoding--->| Transport |-->transfer encoding
                     +-----------+

                        Figure 1


Definitions (see Figure 1):

Displayed text   A visual representation of the intended text.

HTML markup      A sequence of characters formatted according to the
                 HTML specification [HTML2].


Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft      [Page 13]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

MIME encoding    A sequence of octets physically forwarded via e-mail,
                 may include MIME content-transfer-encoding as specified
                 in [MIME1].

HTML editor      Software used to produce HTML markup.

MIME content-    Software used to encode  and decode non-US-ASCII
transfer-encoder characters according to the MIME standard.

HTML viewer      Software used to display HTML documents to recipients.

Note: Real implementations need not split functions into different
modules as described above. The figure above is a logical model in order
to explain how rewriting and transport is done.

If the displayed text contains non-US-ASCII characters, these characters
might have to be rewritten if the transport (as is common in e-mail) is
set to handle only 7-bit characters.

HTML markup allows some characters at the displayed text level to be
represented using either entity references or numeric character
references (as defined in [HTML2] section 3.2.1).  For example, a "small
a, acute accent" may be represented by the entity reference "&aacute;"
or the numeric character reference "&#255;". Alternatively, the same
character might appear directly in the HTML document, but for
transmission through MIME 7-bit-systems, the entire HTML document is
encoded using a Content-Transfer-Encoding (as defined in [MIME1] section
5).

In sending a message containing non US-ASCII characters, both these
rewriting methods MAY be used, and any mixture of them MAY occur when
sending the document via e-mail. Receiving mailers (together with the
Web browser they may use to display the document) MUST be capable of
handling any combinations of these rewriting methods.

The value of the charset attribute of the Content-Type header field
should be US-ASCII if and only if the HTML markup contains only US-ASCII
characters (even if the displayed text contains non-US-ASCII
characters).

Example of non-US-ASCII characters in HTML: See section 9.3 above.

11.2 Line break characters

The MIME standard [MIME1] specifies that line breaks in the MIME
encoding (see figure 1) MUST be CRLF. The HTTP standard [HTTP] specifies
that line breaks in transported HTML markup (see figure 2) may be either
bare CRs, bare LFs or CRLFs. To allow data integrity checks through
checksums, MIME encoding of line breaks SHOULD be such that after
decoding, the line break representation of the original HTML markup is
returned.



Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft      [Page 14]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

Note that since the mail content-MD5 is defined to a canonical form with
all line breaks converted to CRLF, while the HTTP content-MD5 is defined
to apply to the transmitted form. This means that the Content-MD5 HTTP
header may not be correct for Text/HTML that is retrieved from a HTTP
server and then sent via mail.


12. Security Considerations

Some Security Considerations include the potential to mail someone an
object, and claim that it is represented by a particular URI (by giving
it a Content-Location: header). There can be no assurance that a WWW
request for that same URI would normally result in that same object. It
might be unsuitable to cache the data in such a way that the cached data
can be used for retrieval of this URI from other messages or message
parts than those included in the same message as the Content-Location
header. Because of this problem, receiving User Agents SHOULD not cache
this data in the same way that data that was retrieved through an HTTP
or FTP request might be cached.

URLs, especially File URLs, may in their name contain company-internal
information, which may then inadvertently be revealed to recipients of
documents containing such URLs.

One way of implementing messages with linked body parts is to handle the
linked body parts in a combined mail and WWW proxy server. The mail
client is only given the start body part, which it passes to a web
browser. This web browser requests the linked parts from the proxy
server. If this method is used, and if the combined server is used by
more than one user, then methods must be employed to ensure that body
parts of a message to one person is not retrievable by another person.
Use of passwords (also known as tickets or magic cookies) is one way of
achieving this. Note that some caching HTML proxy servers may not
distinguish between cached objects from e-mail and HTTP, which may be a
security risk.

In addition, by allowing people to mail aggregate HTML objects, we are
opening the door to other potential security problems that until now
were only problems for WWW users. For example, some HTML documents now
either themselves contain executable content (JavaScript) or contain
links to executable content (The "INSERT" specification, Java). It would
be exceedingly dangerous for a receiving User Agent to execute content
received through a mail message without careful attention to
restrictions on the capabilities of that executable content.











Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft      [Page 15]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

13. Acknowledgments

Harald T. Alvestrand, Richard Baker, Dave Crocker, Martin J. Duerst,
Lewis Geer, Roy Fielding, Al Gilman, Paul Hoffman, Richard W. Jesmajian,
Mark K. Joseph, Greg Herlihy, Valdis Kletnieks, Daniel LaLiberte, Ed
Levinson, Jay Levitt, Albert Lunde, Larry Masinter, Keith Moore, Gavin
Nicol, Pete Resnick, Jon Smirl, Einar Stefferud, Jamie Zawinski and
several other people have helped us with preparing this document. I
alone take responsibility for any errors which may still be in the
document.


14. References

Ref.            Author, title
---------       --------------------------------------------------------

[CONDISP]       R. Troost, S. Dorner: "Communicating Presentation
                Information in Internet Messages: The Content-
                Disposition Header", RFC 1806, June 1995.

[HOSTS]         R. Braden (editor): "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
                Application and Support", STD-3, RFC 1123, October 1989.

[HTML2]         T. Berners-Lee, D. Connolly: "Hypertext Markup Language
                - 2.0", RFC 1866, November 1995.

[HTTP]          T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, H. Frystyk: Hypertext
                Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0. RFC 1945, May 1996.

[MIDCID]        E. Levinson: "Message/External-Body Content-ID Access
                Type", RFC 1873, December 1995.

[MIME1]         N. Borenstein & N. Freed: "MIME (Multipurpose Internet
                Mail Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and
                Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC
                1521, Sept 1993.

[MIME2]         N. Borenstein & N. Freed: "Multipurpose Internet Mail
                Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types". draft-ietf-
                822ext-mime-imt-02.txt, December 1995.

[NEWS]          M.R. Horton, R. Adams: "Standard for interchange of
                USENET messages", RFC 1036, December 1987.

[REL]           Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Edward Levinson: "The MIME
                Multipart/Related Content-type", <draft-levinson-
                multipart-related-00.txt>, January 1995.

[RELURL]        R. Fielding: "Relative Uniform Resource Locators", RFC
                1808, June 1995.



Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft      [Page 16]
draft-ietf-MHTML-spec-01.txt                                July 1996

[RFC822]        D. Crocker: "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
                text messages." STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.

[SMTP]          J. Postel: "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC
                821, August 1982.

[URL]           T. Berners-Lee, L. Masinter, M. McCahill: "Uniform
                Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.

[URLBODY]       N. Freed and Keith Moore: "Definition of the URL MIME
                External-Body Access-Type", draft-ietf-mailext-acc-url-
                01.txt, November 1995.



15. Author's Address

For contacting the editors, preferably write to Jacob Palme rather than
Alex Hopmann.

Jacob Palme                          Phone: +46-8-16 16 67
Stockholm University and KTH         Fax: +46-8-783 08 29
Electrum 230                         E-mail: jpalme@dsv.su.se
S-164 40 Kista, Sweden

Alex Hopmann
President
ResNova Software, Inc.               E-mail: alex.hopmann@resnova.com
5011 Argosy Dr. #13
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Working group chairman:

Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com>




















Palme-Hopmann      Do not implement based on this draft      [Page 17]