On 11/17/97 at 12:05 PM -0600, Alex Hopmann wrote:
>Jacob Palme wrote:
>>One reason against it might be the Base. Another, of course, is
>>if some implementors has strongly committed his implementation
>>to a solution which does not allow this.
We can do it if we need to.
>From our point of view, we already have to cope with Content-Location and
>Content-ID, so this doesn't complicate stuff much. As Jacob points out the
>only additional complexity it introduces for us is in the spec where we need
>to be clear that ONLY the first Content-Location is used for determining the
Maybe we can just require that if you have multiple Content-Location's, you
MUST specify a Content-Base? (For the record, I still don't see why you
would ever need to determine a base for anything but a "parent" part.
What's the functionality here? Why would you ever need a Content-Base on
one of the referenced parts?)
Pete Resnick <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Work: (217)337-6377 or (619)651-4478 / Fax: (217)337-1980