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

Re: NULL-Request (Sect. 4.1)

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:30:33 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199604242030.WAA28400@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: jg@w3.org
Cc: dmk@allegra.att.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/314
>I guess I'm less concerned about "violating the request/response model
>of HTTP".  Then again, I've designed two previous streaming protocol based
>systems :-).
>The above looks like another possibility that is not a band-aid solution.
>I'm happy either with a general null-request solution, or with recrafting
>7.2.2.  I am unhappy with any solution that would either hack individual
>methods, or be version dependent or depend too much on the details of
>the transport connection state.

How about this:

             Full-Request   = Request-Line              ; Section 5.1
                              *( General-Header         ; Section 4.3
                               | Request-Header         ; Section 5.2
                               | Entity-Header )        ; Section 7.1
                              [ Entity-Body ]           ; Section 7.2
                              [ CRLF ]

Together with a text

 Clients SHOULD NOT include the optional CRLF at the end of a request,
 but servers MUST be tolerant of clients which do include this CRLF.

   Note: Many existing HTTP/1.0 clients add a CRLF at the end of a POST

Received on Wednesday, 24 April 1996 13:39:26 UTC

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