W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

Re: Round 3: moving HTTP 1.0 to informational

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 23:52:25 PST
To: paulh@imc.org
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Jan25.235228pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Looks good. A few minor points:

> If HTTP-to-MIME canonicalization is performed, the value of a
> Content-Length header field of the HTTP data must be updated to
> reflect the new body length.

MIME does not contain a content-length header (any more). In fact, I
cannot find the string "content-length" in any extant RFC. I know some
mail clients send content-length, but it is non-standard. (I might
conjecture that mail doesn't have content-length for the same reasons
why HTTP->MIME gateways should remove it: because encodings or
canonicalization might change it.)  Perhaps this should be titled
Introduction of Content-Length and rewritten accordingly.

> An HTTP client may include a Content-Transfer-Encoding as an extension
> Entity-Header in a POST request when it knows the destination of that
> request is a proxy or gateway to a MIME-compliant protocol.

How is a client to know this?? I think this paragraph should just be
Received on Thursday, 25 January 1996 23:54:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:16 UTC