- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:30:27 -0400 (EDT)
- To: john@math.nwu.edu
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, jg@w3.org
John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Dave Kristol wrote: > > [...] > > After discussions over the weekend, especially exchanges with Ned Freed, > > co-author of RFC 2046, I am amending my proposed changes. In > > particular, most of them go away. It turns out that a careful reading > > of RFC 2046 shows that an extra leading CRLF is unnecessary, and that > > the HTTP example was correct. (Details: the multipart-body grammar > > begins "[preamble CRLF]", which makes the cruft that often precedes > > multipart bodies, plus the CRLF that ends it, optional.) > > > > Enough people have been confused by this that it is important to > have an explicit warning that the leading CRLF is allowed and optional. I agree it's confusing, and subtle. How about if there are two cautions: Cautions: 1) Additional CRLFs may precede the first boundary string in the entity. 2) Although RFC 2046 permits the boundary string to be quoted, some existing implementations handle a quoted boundary string incorrectly. Dave Kristol
Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 08:35:01 UTC