Steve,
My reading of the spec, 1521, is pretty clear - the example boundaries
are unique. Section 7.2 says "The encapsulation boundary MUST NOT
appear inside any of the encapsulated parts". In 7.21 we have, "The
encapsulation boundary is defined as a line consisting entirelly of
two hyphen characters ("-", decimal code 45) followed by the boundary
parameter value". Note, it is the encapsulation boundary, not the
boundary (parameter) that must be unique.
The ABNF also distinguishes between delimiter and boundary.
delimiter := "--" boundary CRLF
boundary := 0*69<bchars> bcharsnospcae
Looks to me like the vendor needs to mend.
Best.../Ed
On Thu, 09 Feb 1995 10:02:00 CST Steve Dorner wrote:
Consider the following fragment:
multipart/mixed; boundary="outer"
--outer
multipart/mixed; boundary="outer-inner"
--outer-inner
stuff
--outer-inner--
--outer--
I have a vendor claiming that this is illegal because the "outer" appears
in the boundary "outer-inner", and thus violates the need for the
boundaries to be unique. Their claim is in fact that "outer" must appear
NOWHERE in the body--not merely that "--outer<CRLF>" must not appear in the
body.
I think this is absolutely preposterous. I think that the uniqueness
requirement means that the string "--outer<CRLF>" must not appear as body
contents, but that "--outer-inner<CRLF>" is perfectly OK (so far as the
outer multipart goes), and that the fragment above is therefore perfectly
ok.
What say you all? Have I misread the RFC? Has the other vendor? Does the
RFC need to be clarified?
--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Incorporated. "Oog make mission statement."