Re: Add: How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)?

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Robert de
Wilde<> wrote:
> So if not valid, what would be a better approach? Leaving out the
> content-length or setting it 0 would be valid I guess? What about the rest
> of the body. Each content-location could give back it's own
> header-informatie (like content-length), that would be good right?

No, the headers in each part are relative to the part itself. The
Content-Location just says that the same thing could be (have been)
obtained at that URL. The Content-Range and Content-Length would be
wrong there.

I think you'd have to make a new header conveying the range of the
part; I don't think you can reuse Content-Range in any way...

> What about content-location, is it valid to put content-location inside the
> multiple parts of a multipart/parallel (or related) message?

Given the definition of multipart/parallel, I'm not even sure you're
right in using it here...

> Trying to find ways within the specification.

How about using message/external-body;access-type=URL [1] in each part
of a new multipart/xxx message?


Thomas Broyer

Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 16:39:12 UTC