- 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
Jim, > Roy Fielding points out > (http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1998q1/0152.html) that your > proposal would require syntactic change to Content-Location, as specified > in HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2068). I (and I believe others) suspect that the syntactic > 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 protocol, > both on (proper) process grounds, but more importantly on pragmatic grounds > 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. Nick
Received on Friday, 16 January 1998 04:13:50 UTC