- From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:51:41 -0400
- To: www-html-editor@w3.org, Elliott Bradshaw <Elliott.Bradshaw@Zoran.com>, don@lexmark.com
- Cc: xp@pwg.org
I'm looking for opinions on the interpretation of RFC3391 [1] since it is normatively referenced by XHTML-Print [2]. RFC 3391 says, An Application/Vnd.pwg-multiplexed entity contains a sequence of chunks. Each chunk consists of a chunk header, a chunk payload and a CRLF. - The chunk header consists of a "CHK" keyword followed by the message number, the chunk payload length, whether the chunk is the last chunk of a message and, finally, a CRLF. The length field removes the need for boundary strings that Multipart uses. (See section 3.1 for the syntax of a chunk header). - The chunk payload is a sequence of octets that is either a complete message or a part of a message. - The CRLF provides visual separation from the following chunk. There are several situations where a single CRLF does not provide visual separation since the CRLF added to the document simply terminates a line rather than adding a empty line. For example in an XHTML-Print document didn't contain a terminating CRLF and adding a single CRLF would give the result shown below in example 1: </body> </html> CHK 0 0 LAST Rather than the following, example 2, I expected from reading the spec: </body> </html> CHK 0 0 LAST This could also occur when interleaving images and the root document. I think this issue will have a large impact on interoperability between printers and producers of multiplexed documents. So I'd like to get other people's interpretations of this matter. If I don't hear from anyone, I'll assume agreement that the multiplexed document should contain visual separation at the end of the chunk, as in the example 2. Jim [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3391.txt [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-print/
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2004 11:51:45 UTC