- From: Laurent Demailly <dl@hplyot.obspm.fr>
- Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 11:57:11 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: Laurent Demailly <dl@hplyot.obspm.fr>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy T. Fielding writes:
> >> o Title, Link, Base, Content-MD5, Content-Language, etc.
> > Sorry If I'm completly off base but could this be changed
> > into "Content-Checksum:". I'd rather not tie MD5 particular
> > *algorithm* to the general 'checksum' *functionality*, (just in case
> > MD6 pops out in few monthes for instance...) {Though I currently use
> > MD5 as the algorithm currently}
So because there were a mere 70 lines document (headers dropped)
written in 1993 (Rfc1544 (hmm, reissued with almost no changes as
rfc1864 very recently)) *suggesting* the use of a *specific*
algorithm, for Email should imply that world stopped and that for a
new proposed protocol (http/1.1) you have to use the same buggy
specific definition ? No evolution possible ? No new ideas/fixes ever
allowed ?
And you make htpp/1.2 when MD6 or something else pops out ?
> Using separate header fields for different
> algorithms is just as applicable (and easier to parse) as any
> parameterized generic header field.
Why not using Accept-Gif: Accept-jpeg:,... headers ? would be
easier...
dl
--
Laurent Demailly * http://hplyot.obspm.fr/~dl/ * Linux|PGP|Gnu|Tcl|... Freedom
Received on Friday, 3 November 1995 03:03:10 UTC