- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:05:45 -0800
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote: > 2010/1/7 Norman Walsh wrote: > > Hi Norm, > >>> So before going further, is it a typo in the content model, is >>> it me not understanding the content model or the prose, or is >>> it something else? > >> Total screw-up by the editor. That got left behind after we >> cleaned things up. My new understanding is: > >> 1. The c:headers in a c:multipart are for the multipart >> message. > > Weird. Why not simply use c:request/c:header then? > >> There's no way to add any other headers and if there are any >> other headers on a multipart reply, they get dropped on the >> floor. > > So the content model of c:multipart is really (c:body)+, > instead of the current (c:header*,c:body+), right? That seems correct to me. > > About RFC 2387 only allowing Content-* headers for parts of a > multipart entity, I cannot find this requirement in the RFC. I > can only find examples with Content-*, but not the rule forbiding > other headers. I guess it is in another MIME RFC (this one is > only for multipart/related). Did I miss anything? In section 6.1 it says that an MUA client is only required to handle the Content-* headers. So far, we choose to only support those headers directly. That's why I would be interested in any RFC that defines another header to be used in a multipart entity body part. -- --Alex Milowski "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 23:06:19 UTC