- From: Ian Duncan <id@cc.mcgill.ca>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 08:28:54 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: dmk@allegra.att.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Tue, 1 Aug 1995, Larry Masinter wrote: > a) I think we should pay attention to Harald's request that we not > call it a C-T-E. Even though we can justify that usage ourselves, > there's no harm in using a different header in HTTP, is there? C-T-E is a really gross but essential bit of cruft. Creating something similar but with elegant purpose should imply a new name. The MIME spec. expressly closes the category off for extension anyhow and it's a gesture that should be respected. > b) I'll give up calling for a string-terminated boundary marker if no > one else thinks it is worthwhile. I think it's essential not just worthwhile, but I suppose it can wait 'til HTTP-NG if necessary. Being able to start sending a stream before having the full wad in hand has too many applications to ignore support for it, particularly since we've got a functioning model, that's proven to work well, available to clone. ... ian
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 1995 05:24:06 UTC