Carl Kugler wrote:
>> The weakness with the MIME way is that it's either unsafe or slow -- either you
> arbitrarily pick a boundary string and hope that it doesn't appear in the
> binary data, or you prescan the data to make sure. Content-length avoids those
> problems.
>This is the standard argument, but:
In practice, content-length is less safe than multipart boundaries,
and usually slower: you have no way of guaranteeing that the content
won't change even if you *think* it is static, and if the content
is dynamically generated, you have to buffer the entire content
before issuing the content-length.
Of course, there are alternatives, e.g., a well known termination
string and a content encoding that guarantees the content doesn't
contain the termination string, or chunked encoding.
Larry
--
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter