IPP> Why HTTP and thoughts on forms etc -Reply

IPP> Why HTTP and thoughts on forms etc -Reply

rdebry at us.ibm.com rdebry at us.ibm.com
Fri Dec 20 08:41:57 EST 1996


Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue:


I agree, and that is why I had suggested a new construct which I called
Multipart/IPP in the proposal below.
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 12/20/96 06:39
AM ---------------------------


        ipp-owner @ pwg.org
        12/19/96 05:23 PM




To: Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM, ipp @ pwg.org at internet
cc:
Subject: Re: IPP> Why HTTP and thoughts on forms etc -Reply




Although I share your distaste for the boundary and prefer Content-Length,
I expect that we would have to do it through some new construct.
RFC 1521 is very clear in its initial paragraph on multipart:


7.2.  The Multipart Content-Type


   In the case of multiple part entities, in which one or more different
   sets of data are combined in a single body, a "multipart" Content-
   Type field must appear in the entity's header. The body must then
   contain one or more "body parts," each preceded by an encapsulation
   boundary, and the last one followed by a closing boundary.  Each part
   starts with an encapsulation boundary, and then contains a body part
   consisting of header area, a blank line, and a body area.  Thus a
   body part is similar to an RFC 822 message in syntax, but different
   in meaning.


I don't think this leaves any room for a new subtype of multipart which
does not have a boundary string.


Bob Herriot




> From rdebry at us.ibm.com Thu Dec 19 05:50:32 1996


>
> We had some discussion of this at the IETF meeting. The multipart/mixed mime
> type apparently allows content-length, but it is not used for anything in the
> server. In fact, we were told that if a content-length field exists, the
> boundary string must still be present and must be used as the boundary.
> Therefore I would like to suggest a new mime type called multipart/IPP (or
> something similar) where we can define the rules  for boundaries, I would
> suggest that if no content-length field is present in a sub-part then boundary
> strings are used as defined in the current multipart/mixed mime type. However,
> if a content-length field is present in a sub-part, no boundary string is
> defined and the content-length field is used.
>
> Lengths are extremely valuable for processing on the server side and can make
a > significant difference in error recovery and in moving data around. I'd
agree > with Scott's assessment - if the lengths are known, use them!



More information about the Ipp mailing list
Our website uses cookies on your device to give you the best user experience. By using our website, you agree to the placement of these cookies. To learn more, read our privacy policy. Read Privacy Policy