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: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:08:01 -0800
To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Cc: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, Nick Shelness <shelness@lotus.com>, IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@segate.sunet.se>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <27260.885006481@nma.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5207
rom Jim Gettys's message Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:55:11 -0800:
}...............................Please see the note I just sent out that
}included a discussion of the need HTTP has for "Alternates", which might
}or might not be grist for that mill.
}                        - Jim

Hi Jim -- I think the term you are thinking of is "alternative" as in
Mutipart-alternative, which I believe serves the very same purpose for
EMail use of MIME to present the recipient with different

However, in your case, the "alternates" are not identical content
versions with alternative names, but alternative (i.e., different)
content versions with distinctive names, as should be the case for
different content.

MHTML is trying to specifically ponly deal the case of identical
content with alternative URIs.  

Perhaps the header name "Content-alias:" will better convey the
meaning and also be a distinctive header that will not be coonfused
with other kids of alternatives.

Anyway, I really think we should jointly (MHTML+HTTP) sort these
issues out before you go to DRAFT, cause after that we can't even make
minor changes.

I can certainly appreciate your conceren and desire to ush to the
finish line for DRAFT status, but it seems to me that the payoff from
real INTERWORKABILITY is too great to so easily give it up.

Received on Friday, 16 January 1998 23:05:09 UTC

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