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

Re: IPP>PRO - http comments

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:14:11 PDT
Message-Id: <3367E053.3A53@parc.xerox.com>
To: Robert Herriot <Robert.Herriot@eng.sun.com>
Cc: rdebry@us.ibm.com, lawrence@agranat.com, ipp@pwg.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3183
> 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.

My take:

It is illegal to send content where the content-length and the boundary
string disagree. So one doesn't take priority over the other. A
should signal an error if it detects that they are different.

Senders that are at all uncertain about the length of the data should
omit content-length and rely on the boundary alone.

Received on Wednesday, 30 April 1997 17:22:28 UTC

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