W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Add: How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)?

From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:38:32 +0200
Message-ID: <a9699fd20906110938p2925be6fwbf26f0d51b02ed7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert de Wilde <robert.de.wilde@online.nl>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Robert de
Wilde<robert.de.wilde@online.nl> wrote:
> So if not valid, what would be a better approach? Leaving out the
> content-length or setting it 0 would be valid I guess? What about the rest
> of the body. Each content-location could give back it's own
> header-informatie (like content-length), that would be good right?

No, the headers in each part are relative to the part itself. The
Content-Location just says that the same thing could be (have been)
obtained at that URL. The Content-Range and Content-Length would be
wrong there.

I think you'd have to make a new header conveying the range of the
part; I don't think you can reuse Content-Range in any way...

> What about content-location, is it valid to put content-location inside the
> multiple parts of a multipart/parallel (or related) message?

Given the definition of multipart/parallel, I'm not even sure you're
right in using it here...

> Trying to find ways within the specification.

How about using message/external-body;access-type=URL [1] in each part
of a new multipart/xxx message?

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2017

-- 
Thomas Broyer
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 16:39:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT