- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:18:35 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
2010/1/7 Norman Walsh wrote: Hi Norm, >> So before going further, is it a typo in the content model, is >> it me not understanding the content model or the prose, or is >> it something else? > Total screw-up by the editor. That got left behind after we > cleaned things up. My new understanding is: > 1. The c:headers in a c:multipart are for the multipart > message. Weird. Why not simply use c:request/c:header then? > There's no way to add any other headers and if there are any > other headers on a multipart reply, they get dropped on the > floor. So the content model of c:multipart is really (c:body)+, instead of the current (c:header*,c:body+), right? About RFC 2387 only allowing Content-* headers for parts of a multipart entity, I cannot find this requirement in the RFC. I can only find examples with Content-*, but not the rule forbiding other headers. I guess it is in another MIME RFC (this one is only for multipart/related). Did I miss anything? Regards, -- Florent Georges http://www.fgeorges.org/
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 22:19:07 UTC