Re: Rev03 changes to 19.2, multipart/byteranges
Dave Kristol (dmk@research.bell-labs.com)
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:30:27 -0400 (EDT)
John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Dave Kristol wrote:
> > [...]
> > After discussions over the weekend, especially exchanges with Ned Freed,
> > co-author of RFC 2046, I am amending my proposed changes. In
> > particular, most of them go away. It turns out that a careful reading
> > of RFC 2046 shows that an extra leading CRLF is unnecessary, and that
> > the HTTP example was correct. (Details: the multipart-body grammar
> > begins "[preamble CRLF]", which makes the cruft that often precedes
> > multipart bodies, plus the CRLF that ends it, optional.)
> >
>
> Enough people have been confused by this that it is important to
> have an explicit warning that the leading CRLF is allowed and optional.
I agree it's confusing, and subtle. How about if there are two cautions:
Cautions:
1) Additional CRLFs may precede the first boundary string in the entity.
2) Although RFC 2046 permits the boundary string to be quoted, some
existing implementations handle a quoted boundary string incorrectly.
Dave Kristol