- From: Andy Jacobs (Exchange) <andyj@Exchange.MICROSOFT.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:15:23 -0700
- To: "'Pete Resnick'" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, mhtml@SEGATE.SUNET.SE
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com
>>}Why not specify that if both headers exist (which is the only case where >>}precedence matters) then the Base and Location headers will be combined >>}according to the [RELURL] rules. This would be consistent with the body >>}part matching that already has to be done by MHTML readers. > This sounds even more confusing than either of the other choices. Now > you're saying I have to take a relative Content-Location and add it to the > Content-Base in order to figure out the base of the document. What if the > Content-Location has ".." in it? I think this path is wrong-headed. An MHTML reader must be able to do this anyway, when resolving links to other body parts. If the referenced body part has both a Base and a relative Location, they must be combined, taking into account "..", etc. My suggestion was to be more consistent in always interpreting the Base and Location as pairs. Otherwise an inexperienced MHTML writer may want to use a Base header for one purpose (to modify Location or to serve as a base for embedded relative URL's) and not mean to have it used for the other purpose. Since I'm new to the standards process, I don't know whether this should be a concern of the spec, and thus this might be a moot argument. ---- - Andy Jacobs andyj@microsoft.com
Received on Thursday, 4 September 1997 13:16:09 UTC