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

Re: NULL-Request (Sect. 4.1)

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 14:09:09 MDT
Message-Id: <9604242109.AA11541@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'dmk@allegra.att.com'" <dmk@allegra.att.com>, "'jg@w3.org'" <jg@w3.org>, "'rst@ai.mit.edu'" <rst@ai.mit.edu>, "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/322
Paul writes:
    I think this is good. This is easier than Jeffs suggestion, which allows
    extra LWS in lots of places.
    To effect this:
    Change the first line of the definition of Full_Request in section 4.1
    (Message Types) and section 5 (why are they duplicated?) from
    >	Full-Request = Request-Line
    >	Full-Request = *( CRLF ) Request-Line
I agree that this would be a good way to make an explicit but
not particularly kludgey change for HTTP/1.1 implementations,
if they were the only implementations we need to worry about.

However, one would have to be quite careful to say that there
are different grammars for senders and receivers, because senders
have to avoid sending extra CRLFs to HTTP/1.0 servers.  And I
think that having something like
    Clients MUST generate
	    Full-Request = Request-Line
    and servers MUST accept
	    Full-Request = *( CRLF ) Request-Line

might be more confusing than simply stating a specific
application of the robustness principle.

Received on Wednesday, 24 April 1996 14:16:16 UTC

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