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

Issue: message/http or application/http

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:05:51 -0800
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Cc: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9801281506.aa17611@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5302
>Certainly, if a message/http body part is transported through e-mail,
>it must follow e-mail rules for heading lines, line folding, line
>breaks, etc. So possible chapter 19.1 should have added to it (to
>avoid confusion) that if a message/http body part is transported
>through HTTP (in the trace) then its use of line length, line folding
>and line breaks can follow HTTP conventions, but if a message/http
>body part is transported through e-mail, then it must adhere to
>e-mail rules in this respect.

I've always found this one of the most annoying things about how
MIME was specified. If all message types must obey the same rules
as an RFC 822 message, then why would you ever need more than

HTTP does have the ability to send proper MIME line folding, line breaks,
etc.  However, for various other reasons it might be better to use
application/http instead, particularly when the entire message needs
to be content-transfer-encoded in order to pass through e-mail.
Perhaps we should change the media type, or simply define both?

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 1998 15:12:22 UTC

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