W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1998

Re: Multiple Content-Location headers

From: <Nick_Shelness@motorcity2.lotus.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:25:20 GMT
To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Cc: IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@segate.sunet.se>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <8025658D.005E32E1.00@motorcity2.lotus.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5200


> Roy Fielding points out
> (http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1998q1/0152.html) that
> proposal would require syntactic change to Content-Location, as specified
> in HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2068).  I (and I believe others) suspect that the
> changes required would break running, deployed implementations.

> HTTP/1.1 is already in very significant deployment. It is essentially
> impossible at this date to introduce incompatible change to the HTTP
> both on (proper) process grounds, but more importantly on pragmatic
> of not breaking deployed code (which is what the process is attempts to
> ensure).

Could I suggest that to break this impasse, that MHTML switches to a new
header field Content-Label to replace its use of Content-Location. This
would better capture the MHTML role of the header field, and would also
allow the simplifications I argued for last week on the MHTML list to
proceed. I.e., Content-Label could only specify an absolute URI, and would
not establish a base.

We also have a pre-existing definition (see RFC 2110), but the state of
MHTML implementation may allow this late breaking change to take effect
without too much negative impact. Speaking for Lotus, we can accomodate it.

Received on Friday, 16 January 1998 04:13:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:04 UTC