Re: Recursive look up of base in outer headers

Andy Jacobs (andyj@Exchange.MICROSOFT.com)
Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:15:23 -0700


Message-ID: <2FBF98FC7852CF11912A000000000001050F6D8A@DINO>
From: "Andy Jacobs (Exchange)" <andyj@Exchange.MICROSOFT.com>
To: "'Pete Resnick'" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, mhtml@SEGATE.SUNET.SE
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: RE: Recursive look up of base in outer headers
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:15:23 -0700 

>>}Why not specify that if both headers exist (which is the only case
where
>>}precedence matters) then the Base and Location headers will be
combined
>>}according to the [RELURL] rules.  This would be consistent with the
body
>>}part matching that already has to be done by MHTML readers.

> This sounds even more confusing than either of the other choices. Now
> you're saying I have to take a relative Content-Location and add it to
the
> Content-Base in order to figure out the base of the document. What if
the
> Content-Location has ".." in it? I think this path is wrong-headed.

An MHTML reader must be able to do this anyway, when resolving links to
other body parts.  If the referenced body part has both a Base and a
relative Location, they must be combined, taking into account "..", etc.
My suggestion was to be more consistent in always interpreting the Base
and Location as pairs.  Otherwise an inexperienced MHTML writer may want
to use a Base header for one purpose (to modify Location or to serve as
a base for embedded relative URL's) and not mean to have it used for the
other purpose.

Since I'm new to the standards process, I don't know whether this should
be a concern of the spec, and thus this might be a moot argument.
----
 - Andy Jacobs
   andyj@microsoft.com