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

Re: Rev03 changes to 19.2, multipart/byteranges

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:21:38 -0500 (CDT)
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>, jg@w3.org, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980727091708.4178A-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/243
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Dave Kristol wrote:

> Last week I wrote:
> > 
> > I propose here corrective wording for open issue RANGEDELIM (described
> > in <http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1998q2/0141.html>).
> > [...]
> > Now, HTTP introduces an interesting ambiguity, because the first line
> > of an entity body could well be considered the beginning of a line, and
> > it follows a CRLF.  However, since we must ignore the CRLF that
> > separates the headers from the body, the body does not really begin
> > with a CRLF.  So by my reading of RFC 2046, an HTTP multipart entity
> > would have to include an extra CRLF preceding the boundary.  I have
> > amended Section 19.2 of the HTTP spec. accordingly, along with the
> > example.
> After discussions over the weekend, especially exchanges with Ned Freed,
> co-author of RFC 2046, I am amending my proposed changes.  In
> particular, most of them go away.  It turns out that a careful reading
> of RFC 2046 shows that an extra leading CRLF is unnecessary, and that
> the HTTP example was correct.  (Details:  the multipart-body grammar
> begins "[preamble CRLF]", which makes the cruft that often precedes
> multipart bodies, plus the CRLF that ends it, optional.)

Enough people have been confused by this that it is important to
have an explicit warning that the leading CRLF is allowed and optional.

John Franks
Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 12:13:06 UTC

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