Re: Recursive look up of base in outer headers

Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> Mon, 01 September 1997 10:13 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa03120; 1 Sep 97 6:13 EDT
Received: from services.bunyip.com (services.Bunyip.Com [192.77.55.2]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid GAA21656; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA11499 for uri-out; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA11494 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:01:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mocha.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA14397 for uri@services; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 05:59:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ester.dsv.su.se (ester.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.10]) by mocha.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA14394 for <uri@Bunyip.Com>; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 05:59:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [130.237.150.138] (jph1.dsv.su.se [130.237.150.138]) by ester.dsv.su.se (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA01919; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 12:01:07 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <v03007811b03029e30580@[130.237.150.138]>
In-Reply-To: <199708301305.JAA28944@access2.digex.net>
References: <v03007800b02cd020a684@[130.237.158.12]> from Jacob Palme at "Aug 29, 97 09:34:58 pm"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 10:26:01 +0200
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>, mhtml@segate.sunet.se
From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Subject: Re: Recursive look up of base in outer headers
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk

At 09.05 -0400 97-08-30, Al Gilman wrote:
> Some reading I have done recently in the HTML 4 draft suggests
> that webmasters are interested in managing metadata such as
> locators for "house styles" on a directory (file tree) basis and
> not always at the atomic file level.  This is probably reflective
> of archive management practices more generally.  This suggests
> that bringing the MHTML base-finding rules in line with RFC 1808
> would be more consistent with the way that many of the files to
> be transmitted as MIME parts are managed at their originating
> sites, and you are more likely to get header usage in practice
> that matches the published rules.

Does your statement answer the question on which has highest
priority in deriving the base, an inner Content-Location or
an outer Content-Base?

Does this mean that people are mapping directory structure to MIME
multiparts? For example, if you have a directory structure:

dir1
   file1.1
   dir1.2
      file1.2.1
   file1.3

then this is sent via e-mail as

Content-Type: Multipart/mixed
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=dir1
   ...
   Content-Type: text/plain
   Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=file1.1
   ...
   Content-Type: Multipart/mixed
   Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=dir1.2
      ...
      Content-Type: text/plain
      Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=file1.2.1
   ...
   Content-Type: text/plain
   Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=file1.3

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme