Subject: Re: IPP>PRO - http comments

From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:34:16 -0700

> From [email-masked] 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.

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:14:11 PDT

> end of a part in a multipart/*. I would prefer that Content-Length
> take priority if it is present.

My take:

It is illegal to send content where the content-length and the boundary
string disagree. So one doesn't take priority over the other. A
recipient
should signal an error if it detects that they are different.

Senders that are at all uncertain about the length of the data should
omit content-length and rely on the boundary alone.

Larry