W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: ISSUE: MUST a client wait for 100 when doing PUT or POST requests?

From: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 13:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>, "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, lawrence@agranat.com, rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com
Message-Id: <ML-3.3.865972851.113.josh@birdcage>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3466
> What is the basis of the client's belief that the server will react
> properly?  What does that even mean?  You explained that small POSTS
> are ok, but how small?  I would find it acceptable to specify a size
> and say the POSTS and PUTS larger than that size (or using chunked)
> require 100 Continue and others don't.

Do POSTs generally have a content-length: header?

What about if the heuristic was: if there's no content-length
 header or the header is there, but the length is > some value
 we agree on, the 100 continue must be used/waited for ?

Josh Cohen				        Netscape Communications Corp.
Netscape Fire Department	               	      
Server Engineering
josh@netscape.com                       http://home.netscape.com/people/josh/
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 1997 13:07:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC