W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: Content-Transfer-Encoding

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 95 09:58:13 EDT
Message-Id: <199507281530.AA225905443@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy's perceived consensus C-T-E proposal looks okay to me.  And he's
stated that anything purporting to handle HTTP/1.1 must handle
"chunked".

Next questions:
1)  Should the specification state when "chunked" must and must not be
used?  Although there's no consensus session/keepalive proposal,
obviously any content sent from the server to the client for a
held-open connection must either have a Content-Length or be chunked.

2) Can a client send chunked content in a POST in lieu of a
Content-Length, or even with a C-L?  (And what does it mean to have
both, especially if they disagree?)

3) If (2) is true, does the CGI interface change to require a CGI script
to interpret C-T-E, or does the interface stay the same, and the server
processes the chunked content and passes the concatenated chunks to the
CGI?  If the latter, is it valid for the server to forge a Content-Length
header for the CGI to use to read the concatenated content where none
existed previously?

Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 28 July 1995 08:34:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:23 EDT