W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > July 2004

Re: XMLP issue 498

From: Jun Fujisawa <fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 04:29:35 +0900
Message-Id: <p0600102cbd2daa141322@[172.23.45.3]>
To: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org

Hi David,

At 10:12 AM -0700 04.7.14, David Fallside wrote:
>The XMLP WG today considered issue 498 which you raised [1]. 
>Unfortunately, the WG was unable to clarify the exact question that 
>you are asking. Please can you expand the description and motivation 
>for your question, thank you.

My original question was that whether it is reasonable to request the
use of "Content-Transfer-Encoding" header field given that HTTP/1.1
does not use this field (RFC2616: 19.4.5 No Content-Transfer-Encoding).

Upon further examination, I understand that non-identity CTE ("quoted-
printable" or "base64") is never used for multipart/related parts, and
there is no problem for specifying "Content-Transfer-Encoding" for each
part of multipart/related HTTP body message.

I suggest to close this issue.

-- 
Jun Fujisawa
<mailto:fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp>
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 15:41:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:28 GMT