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

Re: Length - any takers?

From: Paul Hoffman <paulh@imc.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 10:42:22 -0800
Message-Id: <v0214040bad380a3d90d3@[165.227.10.43]>
To: 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.
. . .
>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.

I'm not clear here on when you say "...Content-Type...be used to specify
length". What if a CGI script *can't* know the length, such as in a "server
push" situation (which uses multipart types and just keeps sending part
after part until the user closes the connection).

As to Larry's suggestion of "strongly recommended", I have a
not-well-thought-out idea: allow "Content-Length: -1" to mean "I definitely
don't (or can't) know the content length and I might use disconnect
instead". This lets 1.1-aware clients know more than just "the server
thinks it knows the length" and to be more prepared for disconnects.

--Paul Hoffman
--Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Friday, 2 February 1996 10:43:33 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:44 EDT