W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

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

From: Robert de Wilde <robert.de.wilde@online.nl>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:58:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4A3137B3.2050406@online.nl>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
CC: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
Comments inline:

Thomas Broyer schreef:
> 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.
A content-range + content-length inside of the *response* of the 
content-location (*part*) wouldn't fix that I guess?
> 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...
Mm, content-range was the best I could find 'till now.
>> 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...
Defining some way of saying that the resource can be received 
async/parallel is my main goal, I thought this would be ok, maybe I can 
use another type then, or as you say later in your message, define a new 
one (though I don't fancy it, I'd like to keep within the existing specs 
as much as possible).
>> 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
Looks great! Lot of bits to read, but I'll get through it! I hope it's 
allowed within (existing) multipart messages! Thanks ..!
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 16:59:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:40 UTC