- From: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:47:23 -0500 (CDT)
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- cc: mhtml@SEGATE.SUNET.SE, uri@bunyip.com
On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Al Gilman wrote: > to follow up on what Jacob Palme said: > > > > > 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. > > > > Some more loose talk from this end -- I haven't done the homework > implied: > > I suspect that HTTP is willing to trust that header fields are > received in the order sent, and give precedence to the textually > last header field within a [single message header, or by > extension the headers of a single MIME part]. Since in the email > context you may not wish to trust that header fields are received > in the order that they were sent, you may have a good reason not > use that as the basis for resolving conflicts. Your suspicion is based on speculation, which could have been avoided by "doing your homework"... > Personally, I see some virtue to a policy which would make the > presence of both a Content-Base and Content-Location header field > within the same header block an error [leaving BASE undefined] if > they do not agree as to the implied BASE. But I do see the > choice whether to fix this quietly, fix it with a warning, or not > fix it as a judgement call without an iron-clad case for any one > choice. Since the first paragraph is wrong in what it says about HTTP, there is no basis for this suggestion. > Particularly, if the same Content-Base + Content-Location value > pair are at risk of being interpreted one way when transmitted > in MIME and another way when transmitted via HTTP I see this as > a likely source of trouble and too arcane for prime time. I agree with this, though. But I don't think anybody disagrees. Klaus
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 1997 18:47:49 UTC