Re: Recursive look up of base in outer headers

Jacob Palme (jpalme@dsv.su.se)
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:58:53 +0200


Message-Id: <v03110700b031e7c5aae8@[130.237.158.12]>
In-Reply-To: <199709011446.KAA01746@access2.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:58:53 +0200
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Subject: Re: Recursive look up of base in outer headers
Cc: mhtml@SEGATE.SUNET.SE, uri@bunyip.com

At 10.46 -0400 97-09-01, Al Gilman wrote:
> Content-Location and Content-Base attributes are
> equivalent in this rule application; they both imply a BASE in
> the context of HTML documents within the associated MIME part
> hierarchy scopes.  Neither attribute has priority by reason of
> whether it is a base or location indication.  However, within the
> class of attributes establishing a BASE, the assertion raised
> most locally takes precedence.

The MHTML standard says that if there is both a Content-Base
and a Content-Location header in the same content heading, the
Content-Base has precedence over the Content-Location. Is there
any problem with this? Clearly, the standard must specify which
has precedence, good standard should not leave things like
this undefined. "undefined" in my opinion is an ugly word
in standards documents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme