W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

Re: Length - any takers?

From: Peter J Churchyard <pjc@trusted.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 12:18:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <9602021718.AA10211@hilo.trusted.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> > When a 1.1 server knows it is talking to a 1.1 client
> > how about requiring that only
> >	Content-Length
> >	Transfer-Encoding
> >	Content-Type (Multipart types)
> > be used to specify length and that closing the connection NOT be allowed
> > for this case. 
> This would require 'chunked' or multipart responses from many CGI
> implementations, but it would definitely be more reliable. Is there
> any point to 'require' vs 'strongly recommend', though?
If we can remove the ambiguity of a closing connection, it would certainly 
make other parts of the 1.1 specifiction cleaner. 'strongly recommend' would
still allow the feature to persist.

The issue of allowing CGI scripts direct access to the client without having
the data 'validated' by something is a different issue. There are many ways
that servers can initiate CGI activity so if we pose the problem I am sure
that it will be solved.

The TIS Network Security Products Group has moved!
voice: 301-527-9500 x123 fax: 301-527-0482
2277 Research Boulevard, 5th Floor, Rockville, MD 20850
Received on Friday, 2 February 1996 09:26:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:16 UTC