W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

Re: Multiple Content-Location headers

From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:21:36 -0800
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Cc: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@segate.sunet.se>
Message-Id: <21043.884737296@nma.com>
It seems clear that we should now explore the idea of having:

No More Than One Content-Base; No More Than One Content-Location; and
Multiple instances of Content-Location-Alternative headers, where-in
it is required that the Content-Location-Alternative values must be
alternative URIs for the exact same content as that which is inclosed
in the same MIME PART of an Compound MHTML Object.

We must remember that all MIME headers must start with "Content-"

Cheers...\Stef

rom your message Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:32:40 -0800:
}
}>Supposes a.gif and images/a.gif actually refer to the same image.
}>And suppose the two HTML objects above have digital seals on them.
}>Then, if you did not allow multiple Content-Location headers in
}>the first body part, you would have to send the image twice, or
}>you would have to modify the HTML invalidating the digital seals!
}
}Or you could use the equivalent of an external-body part, or a
}part that serves as a namespace catalog, or something similar to
}the Alternates header field.  This would not be a frequent occurrence,
}so the representation could be verbose.
}
}HTTP cannot allow multiple Content-Location header fields unless the
}syntax for the field-value is changed to allow multiple URLs separated
}by a comma, which in turn would require that each URL be delimited.
}Such a change is not going to happen at this point in the process.
}
}....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 1998 17:02:27 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:10 EDT