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

Re: Multiple Content-Location headers

From: <Nick_Shelness@motorcity2.lotus.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:13:17 GMT
To: Stef@nma.com
Cc: IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@segate.sunet.se>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <0525658D.0030A954.00@motorcity2.lotus.com>



All,

I have reviewed the relevant Content-Base and Content-Location language in
<draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-01.txt>. All that would be required to fully
align <draft-ietf-mhtml-rev-04X.txt> with this usage would be a reversion
to allowing only 0 or 1 Content-Location header field, per content or
message header. If we wish to continue to allow a resource, carried as an
MHTML body part, to be labeled with additional URIs, then I suggest we
adopt Stef's suggestion, though I would opt for Content-Alternate-Location
in place of Content-Location-Alternate. This would allow us to associate
additional URIs with a body part for the purpose of satisfying multiple URI
referrences with a single body part. Note, that I am not a great fan of
this additional complexity, but others hav argued strongly for its
inclusion, and rough concensus was reached.

Right now, I can see no role for a Content-Alternate-Location header field
in *single object* HTTP, but I leave for others to argue otherwise.

Nick
Received on Friday, 16 January 1998 04:12:04 EST

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