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

Re: Issue: message/http or application/http

From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 07:22:29 +0100
Message-Id: <v03110740b0fb14b7d422@[]>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Cc: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@segate.sunet.se>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5330
At 15.05 -0800 98-01-28, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I've always found this one of the most annoying things about how
> MIME was specified. If all message types must obey the same rules
> as an RFC 822 message, then why would you ever need more than
> message/rfc822?

I thought the difference between message/rfc822 and message/http
was that the outermost heading, the header immediately following
the Content-Type:Message heading, was to be formatted and
interpreted according to e-mail versus http rules. For example,
a message/http header can contain an "Age:" header field, but
such a field is undefined in a message/rfc822 heading.

However, it is probably not permitted to include Content-Encoding
or Transfer-Encoding in headings transported through e-mail,
even if the heading is of type message/http, since those encoding
format may not be permitted in e-mail?

Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme
Received on Sunday, 1 February 1998 22:55:21 UTC

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