Larry,
We were studying the suggested representation for IPP using
your proposal for form-data and could
not figure out how we would represent the IPP attribute tags (adornments).
Can you help us? See section 5.1.3 in the Internet-Draft or Model 2.0
for the description of attribute tags.
Thanks,
Tom
At 21:04 03/19/97 PST, Larry Masinter wrote:
>I submitted a new Internet Draft which is intended to go
>into standards track, and just defines the internet media
>type multipart/form-data independent of HTML.
>>I'm guessing there are still ambiguities in this document
>(since I mainly just cut and pasted from RFC 1867), but
>still, I'd appreciate it if you could review the new document.
>Subject: draft-masinter-form-data-00.txt
>From: Larry Masinter <masinter at parc.xerox.com>
>To: internet-drafts at ietf.org>>Internet Draft Larry Masinter
>draft-masinter-form-data-00.txt Xerox Corporation
>Expires in 6 months March 18, 1997
>> Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data
>>Status of this Memo
>> This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
> documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
> areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
> distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
>> Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
> months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
> documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
> Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
> ``work in progress.''
>> To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
> the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-
> Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa),
> nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim),
> ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
>>1. Abstract
>> This specification defines an Internet Media Type,
> multipart/form-data, which can be used by a wide variety of
> applications and transported by a wide variety of protocols as a
> way of returning a set of values as the result of a user filling
> out a form. Typical applications include form values generated by
> HTML forms and submitted by HTTP post or by electronic mail, but
> the format is independent of those contexts. The definition
> of multipart/form-data is derived from its original definition
> in RFC 1867.
>>2. Definition of multipart/form-data
>> The media-type multipart/form-data follows the rules of all multipart
> MIME data streams as outlined in RFC 1521. It is intended for use in
> returning the data that comes about from filling out a form. In a
> form (in HTML, although other applications may also use forms), there
> are a series of fields to be supplied by the user who fills out the
> form. Each field has a name. Within a given form, the names are
> unique.
>> multipart/form-data contains a series of parts. Each part is expected
> to contain a content-disposition header where the value is "form-
> data" and a name attribute specifies the field name within the form,
> e.g., 'content-disposition: form-data; name="xxxxx"', where xxxxx is
> the field name corresponding to that field. Field names originally in
> non-ASCII character sets may be encoded using the method outlined in
> RFC 1522.
>> As with all multipart MIME types, each part has an optional Content-
> Type which defaults to text/plain. If the contents of a file are
> returned via filling out a form, then the file input is identified as
> application/octet-stream or the appropriate media type, if known. If
> multiple files are to be returned as the result of a single form
> entry, they can be returned as multipart/mixed embedded within the
> multipart/form-data.
>> Each part may be encoded and the "content-transfer-encoding" header
> supplied if the value of that part does not conform to the default
> encoding.
>> Forms may request file inputs from the user. Those file inputs may
> also identify the file name. The file name may be described using
> the 'filename' parameter of the "content-disposition" header. This
> is not required, but is strongly recommended in any case where the
> original filename is known.
>>3 Use of multipart/form-data
>> As with other multipart types, a boundary is selected that does not
> occur in any of the data. (This selection is sometimes done
> probabilisticly.) Each field of the form is sent, in the order
> defined by the form, as a part of the multipart stream. Each part
> identifies the INPUT name within the original form. Each part
>> should be labelled with an appropriate content-type if the media
> type is known (e.g., inferred from the file extension or operating
> system typing information) or as application/octet-stream.
>> If the value of a form field is a set of files rather than a single
> file, that value can be transferred together using the
> multipart/mixed format.
>> While the HTTP protocol can transport arbitrary BINARY data, the
> default for mail transport (e.g., if the ACTION is a "mailto:" URL)
> is the 7BIT encoding. The value supplied for a part may need to be
> encoded and the "content-transfer-encoding" header supplied if the
> value does not conform to the default encoding. [See section 5 of
> RFC 1521 for more details.]
>> The original local file name may be supplied as well, either as a
> 'filename' parameter either of the 'content-disposition: form-data'
> header or in the case of multiple files in a 'content-disposition:
> file' header of the subpart. The client application should make best
> effort to supply the file name; if the file name of the client's
> operating system is not in US-ASCII, the file name might be
> approximated or encoded using the method of RFC 1522. This is a
> convenience for those cases where, for example, the uploaded files
> might contain references to each other, e.g., a TeX file and its .sty
> auxiliary style description.
>> On the server end, the ACTION might point to a HTTP URL that
> implements the forms action via CGI. In such a case, the CGI program
> would note that the content-type is multipart/form-data, parse the
> various fields (checking for validity, writing the file data to local
> files for subsequent processing, etc.).
>>4. Operability considerations
>>4.1 Compression, encryption
>> Some of the data in forms may be compressed or encrypted, using
> other MIME mechanisms. This is a function of the application
> that is generating the form-data.
>>4.2 Other data encodings rather than multipart
>> Various people have suggested using new mime top-level type
> "aggregate", e.g., aggregate/mixed or a content-transfer-encoding of
> "packet" to express indeterminate-length binary data, rather than
> relying on the multipart-style boundaries. While we are not opposed
> to doing so, this would require additional design and standardization
> work to get acceptance of "aggregate". On the other hand, the
> 'multipart' mechanisms are well established, simple to implement on
> both the sending client and receiving server, and as efficient as
> other methods of dealing with multiple combinations of binary data.
>>4.3 Remote files with third-party transfer
>> In some scenarios, the user operating the client software might want
> to specify a URL for remote data rather than a local file. In this
> case, is there a way to allow the browser to send to the client a
> pointer to the external data rather than the entire contents? This
> capability could be implemented, for example, by having the client
> send to the server data of type "message/external-body" with
> "access-type" set to, say, "uri", and the URL of the remote data in
> the body of the message.
>>4.4 Non-ASCII field names
>> Note that MIME headers are generally required to consist only of 7-
> bit data in the US-ASCII character set. Hence field names should be
> encoded according to the prescriptions of RFC 1522 if they contain
> characters outside of that set.
>>5. Security Considerations
>> The data format described in this document introduces no new
> security considerations outside of those introduced by the
> protocols that use it and of the component elements. It is important
> when interpreting content-disposition to not overwrite files
> in the recipients address space inadvertently.
>>6. Author's Addresses
>> Larry Masinter
> Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
> 3333 Coyote Hill Road
> Palo Alto, CA 94304
>> Phone: (415) 812-4365
> Fax: (415) 812-4333
> EMail: masinter at parc.xerox.com>>A. Media type registration for multipart/form-data
>>Media Type name:
> multipart
>>Media subtype name:
> form-data
>>Required parameters:
> none
>>Optional parameters:
> none
>>Encoding considerations:
> No additional considerations other than as for other multipart types.
>>Published specification:
> RFC 1867
>>Security Considerations
>> The multipart/form-data type introduces no new security
> considerations beyond what might occur with any of the enclosed
> parts.
>>References
>>[RFC 1521] MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One:
> Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing the Format of
> Internet Message Bodies. N. Borenstein & N. Freed.
> September 1993.
>>[RFC 1522] MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Two:
> Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text. K. Moore.
> September 1993.
>>[RFC 1806] Communicating Presentation Information in Internet
> Messages: The Content-Disposition Header. R. Troost & S.
> Dorner, June 1995.
>>[RFC 1867] Form-based File UPload in HTML. E. Nebel, L. Masinter,
> November 1995.
>