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

Re: Multiple Content-Location headers

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:36:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Cc: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>, Nick Shelness <shelness@lotus.com>, IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@segate.sunet.se>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980116143259.13553C-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5205

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Jacob Palme wrote:

> 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
> >proxies
> > 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.

My confusion is that I just read mail which appeared to come from you
which was complaining about adding header fields and how that would
somehow make it difficult to use HTTP to transfer your compound document
and now you seem to be endorsing such an approach.  

It would be easier to make progress if you would take one approach and
stick with it....

Dave Morris
Received on Friday, 16 January 1998 14:41:50 UTC

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