W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > July 2004

Re: XMLP issue 498

From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:01:39 -0700
To: Jun Fujisawa <fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp>, xmlp-comments@w3.org
Cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8DA2DFDB.6AABD091-ON88256EDF.00734A87-88256EDF.00738238@us.ibm.com>

Fujisawa-san, thank you for clarifying your position. We will close this
issue without taking any action.

David Fallside
Data Management Stds & OS
Tel 530.477.7169
(TL 544.9665)

             Jun Fujisawa                                                  
             on.co.jp>                                                  To 
                                       David Fallside/Santa                
             07/28/2004 12:29          Teresa/IBM@IBMUS                    
             PM                                                         cc 
                                       Re: XMLP issue 498                  

Hi David,

At 10:12 AM -0700 04.7.14, David Fallside wrote:
>The XMLP WG today considered issue 498 which you raised [1].
>Unfortunately, the WG was unable to clarify the exact question that
>you are asking. Please can you expand the description and motivation
>for your question, thank you.

My original question was that whether it is reasonable to request the
use of "Content-Transfer-Encoding" header field given that HTTP/1.1
does not use this field (RFC2616: 19.4.5 No Content-Transfer-Encoding).

Upon further examination, I understand that non-identity CTE ("quoted-
printable" or "base64") is never used for multipart/related parts, and
there is no problem for specifying "Content-Transfer-Encoding" for each
part of multipart/related HTTP body message.

I suggest to close this issue.

Jun Fujisawa

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

(image/gif attachment: pic31995.gif)

(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:23:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:14:17 UTC