Re: [apps-discuss] 'Base' and 'Content-Base' header fields
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 29 August 2011 23:20 UTC
Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 0B2A821F8BB5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.849, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 8Dgl7Z6twxKP for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6699021F8B4F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.37.195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 595B122E247; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:21:18 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E5BB666.60903@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:21:15 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9D754C2A-1127-42FA-BDD7-6613CE4DCC8D@mnot.net>
References: <4E5BB666.60903@gmail.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
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 23:20:00 -0000
On 30/08/2011, at 1:55 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > So, you see, 'Content-Base' is in the rather uncertain state, and no clear definition is available. (This reminds me of 'Link' header field, which was in rather the same state.) So, is there enough support to undertake the effort to define 'Content-Base' field properly? HTTP doesn't really use Content-Base; we have Content-Location. Clarifying the registry entry seems like the right thing to do... Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- [apps-discuss] 'Base' and 'Content-Base' header f… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] 'Base' and 'Content-Base' head… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [apps-discuss] 'Base' and 'Content-Base' head… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] 'Base' and 'Content-Base' head… SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] 'Base' and 'Content-Base' head… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [apps-discuss] 'Base' and 'Content-Base' head… Mark Nottingham