Re: Recursive look up of base in outer headers

[Al Gilman <[e-mail]>]

to follow up on what Jacob Palme said:

> 
> The MHTML standard says that if there is both a Content-Base
> and a Content-Location header in the same content heading, the
> Content-Base has precedence over the Content-Location. Is there
> any problem with this? Clearly, the standard must specify which
> has precedence, good standard should not leave things like
> this undefined. "undefined" in my opinion is an ugly word
> in standards documents.
> 

Some more loose talk from this end -- I haven't done the homework
implied:

I suspect that HTTP is willing to trust that header fields are
received in the order sent, and give precedence to the textually
last header field within a [single message header, or by
extension the headers of a single MIME part].  Since in the email
context you may not wish to trust that header fields are received
in the order that they were sent, you may have a good reason not
use that as the basis for resolving conflicts.

Personally, I see some virtue to a policy which would make the
presence of both a Content-Base and Content-Location header field
within the same header block an error [leaving BASE undefined] if
they do not agree as to the implied BASE.  But I do see the
choice whether to fix this quietly, fix it with a warning, or not
fix it as a judgement call without an iron-clad case for any one
choice.

Particularly, if the same Content-Base + Content-Location value
pair are at risk of being interpreted one way when transmitted
in MIME and another way when transmitted via HTTP I see this as
a likely source of trouble and too arcane for prime time.  

--
Al Gilman