- From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 12:09:13 -0500 (EST)
- To: jpalme@dsv.su.se
- Cc: mhtml@seagate.sunet.se, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> wrote: >The MHTML group will probably want to handle Content-Base in the same >way as the HTTP group. We understand that the HTTP group has decided >to remove the Content-Base header field, and we will probably do the >same. > >Question: RFC 2068 did contain a Content-Base header. How will >this circumstance be handled in the new HTTP standard? > >(1) Write nothing at all about Content-Base. > >(2) Mention somewhere that an earlier version of this standard > had a header Content-Base hwich has been removed. > >(3) Indicate Content-Base as an obsolete syntax, which servers > are recommended to accept for receipt during an interim > period, but not use in new HTTP headers. This presumeably also should be addressed in the URL -> URI draft before that becomes a Draft Standard. It includes Content-Base with a diagram and textual description of the priorities for using it versus Content-Location, versus headers or a BASE element in the body, for the base, parallel to what is in the MHTML Proposed Standard. Fote ========================================================================= Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 =========================================================================
Received on Sunday, 8 February 1998 09:16:20 UTC