Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:01:39 -0700
To: Jun Fujisawa <fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp>, xmlp-comments@w3.org
Cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8DA2DFDB.6AABD091-ON88256EDF.00734A87-88256EDF.00738238@us.ibm.com>
Fujisawa-san, thank you for clarifying your position. We will close this issue without taking any action. Regards, David ====================== David Fallside Data Management Stds & OS Tel 530.477.7169 (TL 544.9665) Jun Fujisawa <fujisawa.jun@can on.co.jp> To David Fallside/Santa 07/28/2004 12:29 Teresa/IBM@IBMUS PM cc xmlp-comments@w3.org Subject Re: XMLP issue 498 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>
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)
(image/gif attachment: pic31995.gif)
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)