Re: [apps-discuss] 'Base' and 'Content-Base' header fields

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Mon, 29 August 2011 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010FF21F8CBC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HhSZm-XO87Cx for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0495521F8C77 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so19795775pzk.18 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=bc+mFi17IUtwStEixxhZipGbO6lzghtCou5luAtaQGY=; b=rjbIbUPRRgmbtRtFfD7Ufw3mj5zJrO0lc7f0eeMEyh6s7Pvfwbv+67PBApBCSnkgg+ 1gypZcyfx4yshNY83CjV9uo+cYlW7GGNExAgycnWBAeS/+7UwQcynge1UM7ztNgJVbRY dG0I++ZFAQ8Sxdu5N61e0RmDhmUr6iPyKdopw=
Received: by 10.142.158.3 with SMTP id g3mr2629469wfe.127.1314642300141; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.98.5 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E5BB666.60903@gmail.com>
References: <4E5BB666.60903@gmail.com>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:24:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybrZyJmvmZUjJtaOeSLRqkb-KPjki1TTy58ohEVAb9nQaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] 'Base' and 'Content-Base' header fields
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:23:36 -0000

On 29 August 2011 17:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> So, is there enough support to undertake the effort to define
> 'Content-Base' field properly?

>From my POV all "base URI" concepts do not work as they should,
because fragments are interpreted w.r.t. this base, instead of
"the document at hand".  If fragments in "offline" documents,
notably file: URIs, don't work as expected with a http: base
in an "offline" state, then a base for online resources (CSS,
icons, banners, etc.) doesn't help.  I'm not sure that this is
also relevant for Content-Base and MIME.

Apparently RFC 2557 says that the Content-Base in RFC 2110 is
obsolete, and RFC 4021 forgot to mention that detail when the
header field registry was established.

Let's just fix the IANA registry, Content-Base is a "MUST NOT
generate" (RFC 2557 section 12).  For the former "Base" header
field I sent a review request to ietf-message-headers@ietf, it
just has to be registered as obsoleted by RFC 2110.

-Frank