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

Re: Worries about content-length

From: Ned Freed <NED@sigurd.innosoft.com>
Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 14:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: jag@scndprsn.eng.sun.com
Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <01HQ9IBRTJWY8Y534Q@SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM>
> > > Hmm, is it that much easier? In order for the server to guarantee that the
> > > `random' string is unique it must parse the stream before it can generate
> > > one and then it might as well calculate the content-length?
> >
> > You can guarantee (with adequate probability) that the end string is
> > unique without parsing the data, by using a sufficiently good random
> > number generator.
> >
> > I guarantee it.

> Yes, but it's still a hack.  A simpler solution is to just pick a constant
> byte value (020 springs to mind :-) and use that as an escape code.  It
> doesn't fit into the MIME scheme of things, but it's 100% solid and simpler
> to build than mime/multipart

Actually, I see it the other way around, with byte stuffing being the hack and
unique boundaries as the cleanest way to do it. I also disagree about it being
simpler -- byte stuffing requires that you diddle the stream as it is sent,
which complicates your inner processing loop where you spend your time.
Boundaries keep that loop nice and simple.

				Ned
Received on Monday, 8 May 1995 14:37:31 EDT

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