[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Character set registration

1995-12-18 21:35:18
The following sections from the latest (version of September 5, 1995) 
HTTP 1.0 spec seem to be relevant:

I'm glad you pointed these out, because they indicate a severe
defect in the HTTP spec.

Either HTTP uses MIME content-types or it doesn't.  If it does
use MIME content-types, it is fundamentally acceptable for HTTP
to have a different canonical form for such types than does MIME.
This will cause a HUGE mess for anyone who tries to do content-md5
or stronger authenticity/integrity assurances, or encryption, and
transfer such objects over both HTTP and email.

I can accept that HTTP clients need to be able to deal with 
pre-MIME practice where most files were LF-delimited.  (For
practical purposes, mail clients need to be able to do this 
as well).  But HTTP cannot redefine MIME canonical form; it's
not within its scope.  At best, either the HTTP spec or the 
definitions of particular content-types can include advice
about how to deal with malformed objects.

It might seem like a lot of fuss over a trivial wording change,
but the canonical form model is very important to interoperability.
It's hard enough to get people to stick to it without having
HTTP confuse the issue.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>