Re: Is Content-type an RFC822 "structured header"?
Pete Resnick <presnick <at> qualcomm.com>
1999-05-21 17:23:26 GMT
On 5/21/99 at 10:43 AM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>Fine, but that still does not establish _exactly_ where folding may occur.
You're having a syntax vs. semantics problem.
Folding may *occur* anywhere in a structured field body between any
two tokens in 822 (and by extension 2045). That is to say, you must
accept folding at these places. However, if you have a string of
"unfolded" field contents that you "wish to fold", the only way to do
that is to insert CRLF before a space or a tab. So, similar to your
above example, you can "perform the act of folding" after the "=" in
Content-type: image/tiff; boundary= "blahblahblah"
but you can't "perform the act of folding" after the "=" in this one:
Content-type: image/tiff; boundary="blahblahblah"
However (and this is the important semantic point", the above to
Content-Type fields are semantically identical; the optional CFWS
around the "=" isn't semantically important.
On the other hand, let's look at the two examples that you gave.
First, you had:
>>> Content-type: image/tiff; boundary=