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

Re: Multiple Content-Location headers

From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:24 +0100
Message-Id: <v03110713b0e47d75c475@[]>
To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Cc: Nick Shelness <shelness@lotus.com>, Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>, IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <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/5198
At 12.57 -0800 98-01-15, Jim Gettys wrote:
> The problem we have is syntax and implementation, not semantics.
> Lets clear this hurdle before we get into the meat of what you are trying
> to achieve, and whether your suggestion fits into the architecture of the
> Web, and my apologies of jumping into the meat in some of my early messages
> on this topic.
> Roy Fielding's point is that the syntax change required to allow the header
> name Content-Location to have multiple fields (needed as that is what
> typically do if they find multiple headers of the same name), is a problem,
> and one that may (likely) break exisiting implementations.

But what I suggested what to allow only one field, and one value, with the
name Content-Location in each heading, and to define a new header field
Content-Location-Alternate for cases where more than one is needed.
That would avoid your problem.

Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme
Received on Friday, 16 January 1998 01:56:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC