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

Re: A modest proposal

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:13:35 PDT
To: luotonen@netscape.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <95Aug17.231341pdt.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com>
> For the transition phase I still think that we should add Lou's SIZE
> parameter to I-M-S.  Most of the cache corruption is truncation due to
> the fact that HTTP uses closing of connection as EOF and far too many
> implementations leave truncation unnoticed (and it's not even possible
> to notice it if there is no C-L header).

Why is getting someone to pay attention to 'size' easier than getting
them not to cache truncated data or data without C-L?

If the data didn't have a C-L in the first place, how would the server
be able to check the length against a I-M-S parameter?
Received on Thursday, 17 August 1995 23:15:42 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:25 EDT