W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: IPP>PRO - http comments

From: Robert Herriot <Robert.Herriot@eng.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:34:16 -0700
Message-Id: <199704301934.MAA19306@woden.eng.sun.com>
To: rdebry@us.ibm.com, lawrence@agranat.com
Cc: ipp@pwg.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3175

> From lawrence@agranat.com Wed Apr 30 11:51:49 1997
>   My original reply seems to have started an interesting thread on the
>   subject on the http-wg list; I'll let you know how it comes out, but
>   the opinion that the HTTP Content-Length header may be used for each
>   part of a multipart/* seems to be well supported.

It would be good to get a definitive answer as to whether
Content-Length takes priority over the boundary string in a
multipart/*.  At a recent IETF meeting I asked such a question to some
knowledgeable person who said that Content-Length was ignored in this
context and that the boundary string was the only way to determine the
end of a part in a multipart/*. I would prefer that Content-Length take
priority if it is present.
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 1997 12:44:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC