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

Re: Is MHTML only for e-mail?

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 11:03:52 PDT
Message-Id: <3437D688.D1721250@parc.xerox.com>
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Cc: mhtml@segate.sunet.se, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4517

1) HTTP vs. "web browsing"
It would be useful to consider separating "HTTP" out from the
application of "web browsing", in the same way that "SMTP" is
separate from the application of "mail". Currently, the world
commonly uses "HTTP" and "HTML" and "URL" and various other
common components to deploy the "web browsing" application.
HTTP is also used for many other applications, and the "web 
browsing" application can be supported using many other protocols,
as indicated by the URL scheme employed.

HTTP places no restrictions on what media types it transports.
MHTML defines a new media type, "multipart/related". The
definition of "multipart/related" must be independent of
the protocols which are used to transport it.

I would urge that the definition of "multipart/related" be separated
from the application of "mailing someone a web page" (MHTML).
The definition of "multipart/related" should make clear that it
is a general extension to MIME multipart, and applies to *all*
applications that use MIME (including web browsing).

I would object to having the MHTML say that it 'applies to HTTP'
since such a statement would contribute to the existing confusion
between the transport protocol (HTTP), the media types it is used
to transport, and the applications that are being supported by
such a combination.


Received on Sunday, 5 October 1997 11:24:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC