IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP>PRO - http comments

Re: IPP>PRO - http comments

Robert Herriot (Robert.Herriot@Eng.Sun.COM)
Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:34:16 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Robert Herriot: "Re: IPP> MIME multipart/* vs HTTP"
Previous message: Carl-Uno Manros: "IPP> SEC - No phone conference this week"
Maybe in reply to: Roger K Debry: "IPP>PRO - http comments"
Next in thread: Larry Masinter: "Re: IPP>PRO - http comments"

> From lawrence@agranat.com Wed Apr 30 11:51:49 1997

> My original reply seems to have started an interesting thread on the
> subject on the http-wg list; I'll let you know how it comes out, but
> the opinion that the HTTP Content-Length header may be used for each
> part of a multipart/* seems to be well supported.

It would be good to get a definitive answer as to whether
Content-Length takes priority over the boundary string in a
multipart/*. At a recent IETF meeting I asked such a question to some
knowledgeable person who said that Content-Length was ignored in this
context and that the boundary string was the only way to determine the
end of a part in a multipart/*. I would prefer that Content-Length take
priority if it is present.

Next message: Robert Herriot: "Re: IPP> MIME multipart/* vs HTTP"
Previous message: Carl-Uno Manros: "IPP> SEC - No phone conference this week"
Maybe in reply to: Roger K Debry: "IPP>PRO - http comments"
Next in thread: Larry Masinter: "Re: IPP>PRO - http comments"