ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Let the header name be "Location:"

1995-11-20 17:57:21
HTTP disregards this part of the MIME spec because it
must do so in order retain entity information within body parts,
and I don't like disregarding the MIME spec when I shouldn't have to
(i.e., when the design constraints of the two systems are identical).

I was not aware that HTTP disregards this. If so its only because I was asleep
at the switch, and didn't catch it when the document was reviewed. Now that 
you
have pointed it out I will be alert to it and will lobby to have HTTP changed
and not MIME.

That isn't even possible.  While removing the two sentences I referred to
would add functionality to MIME (not supported by existing MIME systems),
enforcing them on HTTP would remove existing functionality from deployed
web browsers.  Removing that functionality from the HTTP standard would just
invalidate the standard -- it would have no affect on practice. 
Either way, MIME systems will either have to adapt to that practice or
lose information when viewing multiparts from HTTP.

BTW, to answer the other question raised, the multipart/digest equivalent is:

    --border
    Content-Type: message/http; msgtype=response
    Content-Location: http://www.ics.uci.edu/

    HTTP/1.0 200 OK
    Server: Apache/1.0
    Content-Type: text/html
    Location: http://www.ics.uci.edu/
    Content-Length: 7671

    ...
    --border

instead of

    --border2
    Content-Type: text/html
    Location: http://www.ics.uci.edu/
    Content-Length: 7671
    
    ...
    --border2

In other words, allow HTTP header fields to be retained only if they are
enclosed within an additional message encapsulation.  That was an option
(even though it is ugly) two years ago; I do not consider it an option
today unless someone can convince the industry otherwise.

However, ignoring that question for a bit, what is more troubling to me
is that RFC 1808 made it to proposed standard without a single complaint
about the fact that it introduces the Base: header field for use within
MIME messages.  Since that is not yet widely implemented on either system,
I'd like to know now whether or not I need to change it to Content-Base
at the post-December review.

[p.s. Have you noticed how we always get overwhelmed by mail just before
      an IETF meeting deadline?]

Cheers,

 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    
(fielding(_at_)ics(_dot_)uci(_dot_)edu)
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056
    http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/