W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: Worries about content-length

From: Rick Troth <TROTH@ua1vm.ua.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 May 95 12:41:54 CDT
Message-Id: <9505081808.AA01228@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>Packetized C-T-Es are not specified yet.
>Most body types (all but the multiparts) do not have an explicit
>end-of-body delimiter.

        I like Larry's suggestion to use a boundary marker.
Almost wish that boundary were more than just a parameter to multipart.
That is,  it would be helpful for things like this if we could have a
clear EOF in the stream without having to wrap-up the object in a
multipart.   Not sure how far to take this.

>This means that the closing of the connection is THE method left when
>you don't depend on content-length.
>
>I've seen this blow up on me:   ...

        Oh yes ... leaving EOF to close-of-connection is right out.

>This worries me.

        Me too.

>             Harald T.  Alvestrand

        There's more to it:  Content-Length is bad all around.
Content-Length is okay for us on HTTP,  but MIME objects are getting
carried around beyond our 8-bit clean binary environment.

        Both MIME and HTML should survive a more hostile world,  even
going so far as to be cut-n-pastable.   I'm not kidding and I'm not crazy.
This is really a small step and the payoff is pretty big.   It allows MIME
and HTML to be used on platforms most of us forget.   (or would like to)
But that's where a LOT of people have critical data.

--
Rick Troth <troth@ua1vm.ua.edu>, Houston, Texas, USA
http://ua1vm.ua.edu/~troth/
Received on Monday, 8 May 1995 11:14:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:21 EDT