- From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:08:17 +0100
- To: Nick_Shelness@motorcity2.lotus.com
- Cc: IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@segate.sunet.se>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 20.55 +0000 98-01-15, Nick_Shelness@motorcity2.lotus.com wrote: > The reason for changing from my previous align MHTML with HTTP 1.1 position > (which you also enunciate), to my employ a new header field position, was > because I was concerned that the MIME folding algorithm we apply to header > fields containing invalid URIs would be incompatible with HTTP 1.1. HTTP > 1.1 can outlaw invalid URIs, MHTML has to both make them RFC822/MIME safe > and cope with them. This would then require that Content-Base be replaced by a new header name, too. And maybe also other header fields. I think it would be a great pity if the same object could not be sent via HTTP and SMTP just because of such possible syntax problems. For example, you may want to receive an object via one protocol and further transport it via another protocol. And we have in the MHTML group carefully tried to avoid the need for changes in the object in this case, so that digital seals are not broken. Would existing HTTP implementations get into deep trouble if they get header fields which are folded across several lines according to the conventions used in e-mail? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme
Received on Friday, 16 January 1998 01:56:36 UTC