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

Re: Last-Modified in chunked footer

From: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:12:17 -0500 (CDT)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970905093855.1298C-100000@xochi.tezcat.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4329
On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Removing the restriction on the sender unfortunately adds more
> complexity to the recipient, if the recipient must be able to
> process mandatory header-fields in the trailer. And implementors
> of recipients and senders seem to be in different groups, even
> if they work for the same company, so we can't rely on implementor
> ingenuity to get this one 'right'.
> I was thinking of something like:
> "Any header-field which the sender MUST send in a request should be
> in the header and not in the trailer."
> although that is not quite right.
> (I will note, parenthetically, that the ability to say the previous
> sentence is critically dependent on separating "header-field" from
> "header".)

That is far too cryptic, and I am not sure what it means.

The BNF currently doesn't define "header-field".  "header field" means the
same as what is more sloppily referred to as just "header", in my
understanding.  So maybe you mean "header field value" instead of

Received on Friday, 5 September 1997 08:15:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC