Re: Issue: message/http or application/http

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