- From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:04:41 -0800
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > Did your proposal include multipart/mixed responses for
> > keep-alive cgi scripts? That seems to be what everyone
> > is implementing.
>
> No, and I'm not aware of *any* implementation that does this.
> Is somebody holding out on me?
>
> Right now, CGI scripts just ignore keep-alive and close the connection.
> For the "official" HTTP/1.1, they can use the chunked transfer encoding
> instead of a multipart, if desired.
Netscape navigator and the netscape server both use
"multipart/mixed" as per Alex's proposal. I'm not
aware of any server implementer's even wanting to
support chunked transfer encoding. I for one
will strongly fight against adding yet another
encoding form.
>
> > I'm not happy with using the "multipart/mixed"
> > name. I would prefer "multipart/x-http-response" or something
> > like it so that we don't have name space collision with email
> > messages.
>
> That isn't a namespace collision -- multiparts are just multiparts:
> a mechanism for sending multiple bodies in a single message. The UA
> should treat them identically no matter where they come from.
>
There is a namespace collision. the user representation of
a multipart/mixed message is well specified and does not
conform to the usage in Alex's proposal. "Multipart"
encoding is the right thing for HTTP but it should use
a different sub name.
:lou
--
Lou Montulli http://www.netscape.com/people/montulli/
Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 18:09:20 UTC