Re: Multiple Content-Location headers

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