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

Re: MHTML/HTTP 1.1 Conflicts

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:41:37 -0500 (EST)
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Cc: IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@segate.sunet.se>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980128083411.2645A-100000@alice.agranat.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5296

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Jacob Palme wrote:

> Why did the HTTP group decide to remove Content-Base from the HTTP
> specification? Does this mean that the sender must use the
> base element inside the HTML text, in all cases where relative
> URLs are not matched by the base taken from the request URI.

RFC 2068 did not use the normative MUST in the description of the header,
leading some implementors to decide that it was optional.  From the
perspective of the server it is not usefull unless the client is
guaranteed to use it (if you have to also put the base into the entity
then there is no point in putting it into the headers).

> If the HTTP group has decided to remove Content-Base, are the 
> same reasons valid for removing Content-Base from MHTML? 

The discussion on the http list began with:

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 1998 05:43:48 UTC

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