- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:23:48 -0500 (CDT)
- To: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
- Cc: John Franks <john@dehn.math.nwu.edu>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@nlanr.net>
On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Dave Kristol wrote: > It appears that RFC 2046 (Sect. 5.1.1) treats the CRLF that precedes a > boundary as *part* of the boundary: > > The boundary delimiter MUST occur at the beginning of a line, i.e., > following a CRLF, and the initial CRLF is considered to be attached > to the boundary delimiter line rather than part of the preceding > part. > [...] > NOTE: The CRLF preceding the boundary delimiter line is conceptually > attached to the boundary so that it is possible to have a part that > does not end with a CRLF (line break). Body parts that must be > considered to end with line breaks, therefore, must have two CRLFs > preceding the boundary delimiter line, the first of which is part of > the preceding body part, and the second of which is part of the > encapsulation boundary. > ... > > To me it appears that RFC 2068 conflicts with RFC 2046 in its letter, > but follows it in the spirit. I think we need a MIME guru to pass > judgement. Or we can add another note to Section 19.4 of the HTTP/1.1 > spec. about this difference beteen HTTP and MIME. > You understand the problem correctly. I don't think that RFC is specific. There is no discussion of CRLF. It gives an example in which all CRLF's are invisible and that is all. I personally would not want to draw conclusions based on the number of blank lines in the formating of the spec document! I don't think it is sufficient to just refer to a MIME RFC either. I don't care how it is done, but we need to be more precise. John Franks john@math.nwu.edu
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 1998 07:25:31 UTC