Re: Multiple Content-Location headers

>  From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
>  Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:24 +0100
>  To: jg@pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
>  Cc: Nick Shelness <shelness@lotus.com>, jg@pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys),
>          IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>,
>          http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>  Subject: Re: Multiple Content-Location headers
>  
>  At 12.57 -0800 98-01-15, Jim Gettys wrote:
>  > The problem we have is syntax and implementation, not semantics.
>  > Lets clear this hurdle before we get into the meat of what you are trying
>  > to achieve, and whether your suggestion fits into the architecture of the
>  > Web, and my apologies of jumping into the meat in some of my early messages
>  > on this topic.
>  >
>  > Roy Fielding's point is that the syntax change required to allow the header
>  > name Content-Location to have multiple fields (needed as that is what
>  >proxies
>  > typically do if they find multiple headers of the same name), is a problem,
>  > and one that may (likely) break exisiting implementations.
>  
>  But what I suggested what to allow only one field, and one value, with the
>  name Content-Location in each heading, and to define a new header field
>  Content-Location-Alternate for cases where more than one is needed.
>  That would avoid your problem.
>  

Sorry...  That would work.  Please see the note I just sent out that
included a discussion of the need HTTP has for "Alternates", which might
or might not be grist for that mill.
			- Jim
--
Jim Gettys
Industry Standards and Consortia
Digital Equipment Corporation
Visting Scientist, World Wide Web Consortium, M.I.T.
http://www.w3.org/People/Gettys/
jg@w3.org, jg@pa.dec.com

Received on Friday, 16 January 1998 08:57:54 UTC