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

Re: Content-Transfer-Encoding

From: Ian Duncan <id@cc.mcgill.ca>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 08:28:54 -0400 (EDT)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: dmk@allegra.att.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950801081719.11779C-100000@amaretto.cc.mcgill.ca>
On Tue, 1 Aug 1995, Larry Masinter wrote:

> a) I think we should pay attention to Harald's request that we not
> call it a C-T-E. Even though we can justify that usage ourselves,
> there's no harm in using a different header in HTTP, is there?

C-T-E is a really gross but essential bit of cruft. Creating something 
similar but with elegant purpose should imply a new name. The MIME 
spec. expressly closes the category off for extension anyhow and it's a 
gesture that should be respected.

> b) I'll give up calling for a string-terminated boundary marker if no
> one else thinks it is worthwhile.

I think it's essential not just worthwhile, but I suppose it can wait 'til 
HTTP-NG if necessary. Being able to start sending a stream before having 
the full wad in hand has too many applications to ignore support for it, 
particularly since we've got a functioning model, that's proven to work 
well, available to clone.

 ...   ian
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 1995 05:24:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:14 UTC