Re: Content-Transfer-Encoding
Ian Duncan (id@cc.mcgill.ca)
Tue, 1 Aug 1995 08:28:54 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 1 Aug 1995, Larry Masinter wrote:
> a) I think we should pay attention to Harald's request that we not
> call it a C-T-E. Even though we can justify that usage ourselves,
> there's no harm in using a different header in HTTP, is there?
C-T-E is a really gross but essential bit of cruft. Creating something
similar but with elegant purpose should imply a new name. The MIME
spec. expressly closes the category off for extension anyhow and it's a
gesture that should be respected.
> b) I'll give up calling for a string-terminated boundary marker if no
> one else thinks it is worthwhile.
I think it's essential not just worthwhile, but I suppose it can wait 'til
HTTP-NG if necessary. Being able to start sending a stream before having
the full wad in hand has too many applications to ignore support for it,
particularly since we've got a functioning model, that's proven to work
well, available to clone.
... ian