Re: [RFC] MIME-type parsing (was: problems with Jata PI)

I know this, you know, Paul know this. But there are people who think
thinks that there is a line break here, not a CRLF.

Aarno

On Monday, April 14, 2003, at 01:59 PM, Stipe Tolj wrote:

> Ok, this is from RFC 2616:
>
> 3.7.2 Multipart Types
>
>    MIME provides for a number of "multipart" types -- encapsulations
> of
>    one or more entities within a single message-body. All multipart
>    types share a common syntax, as defined in section 5.1.1 of RFC
> 2046
>
>
>
> Fielding, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page
> 27]
> 
> RFC 2616                        HTTP/1.1                       June
> 1999
>
>
>    [40], and MUST include a boundary parameter as part of the media
> type
>    value. The message body is itself a protocol element and MUST
>    therefore use only CRLF to represent line breaks between
> body-parts.
>    Unlike in RFC 2046, the epilogue of any multipart message MUST be
>    empty; HTTP applications MUST NOT transmit the epilogue (even if
> the
>    original multipart contains an epilogue). These restrictions exist
> in
>    order to preserve the self-delimiting nature of a multipart
> message-
>    body, wherein the "end" of the message-body is indicated by the
>    ending multipart boundary.
>
> which indicates that the boundarys should be CRLF'ed, right?!
>
> Stipe
>
> [email protected]
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wapme Systems AG
>
> Vogelsanger Weg 80
> 40470 Düsseldorf
>
> Tel: +49-211-74845-0
> Fax: +49-211-74845-299
>
> E-Mail: [email protected]
> Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> wapme.net - wherever you are
>