On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Noah Slater<nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:38:51AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: >> As I read the original email about Content-MD5 is that they are >> specifically *not* for document revisions because then we'd have to do >> canonicalization. > > I thought the whole point was to replace the current revision code with MD5 > hashes so that the document revisions are deterministic. If we cant do this, > what is the point of this whole exercise? > >> But the RFC specifically states that the Content-MD5 is applied to the >> canonical version. > > This tripped me up at first too. The RFC is talking about the MIME canonical > version. If you re-read, you'll see that this is about newline normalisation, > and other sundry details of the transport encoding. >
Oh sweet. I kept reading "model of MIME" to mean something like "canonical version according the content-type". > Best, > > -- > Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater >
