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

Re: Unidentified subject!

From: <jg@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 96 21:15:14 -0400
Message-Id: <9606010115.AA05872@zorch.w3.org>
To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'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/670

Paul Leach Writes:

>Section 3.6 on chunked transfer-coding says
>       footer         = *Entity-Header
>This used to say something like
>        footer   = *<Content-MD5 or future headers that explicitly state that
>                                 can be in footers>
>This was because of a previous objection (by whom I don't recall) that
>they didn't want to have to make sure their implementation handled
>arbitrary headers (especially ones like Content-Type that might affect
>how the entity was processed) after the entity-body had been received. I
>hypothesize that this is because the current implementations alwys have
>all the existing headers in hand before the entity-body starts arriving,
>and might be difficult to change. In any case, there seems to be little
>advantage in allowing arbitrary headers in the footer, and allowing them
>runs counter to the pupose for them stated in the text of the section;
>the proposed change to the BNF merely tries to capture that intent.

Ok, I buy that, unless others complain, it will be reverted to the
previous definition.
				- Jim
Received on Friday, 31 May 1996 18:18:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC