- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:38:32 +0200
- To: Robert de Wilde <robert.de.wilde@online.nl>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Robert de Wilde<robert.de.wilde@online.nl> 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? [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2017 -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 16:39:12 UTC