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

Re: What is Content-Length?

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 11:44:20 -0600 (CST)
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971213114104.18785A-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4943
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:

> John Franks wrote:
>     This raises the whole issue of stacked transfer encodings.  
>     Are you suggesting that arbitrary stackings be allowed, or
>     just two, the second of which is chunked?
> I'm not "suggesting" anything.  It's already in the spec, and
> has been there since at least RFC2068:
> 14.40 Transfer-Encoding
>    The Transfer-Encoding general-header field indicates what (if any)
>    type of transformation has been applied to the message body in order
>    to safely transfer it between the sender and the recipient. This
>    differs from the Content-Encoding in that the transfer coding is a
>    property of the message, not of the entity.
>           Transfer-Encoding     
> 		  = "Transfer-Encoding" ":" 1#transfer-coding
> the BNF clearly allows any number of transfer-codings.
> The current -rev-01 draft adds:
>        If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the transfer
>        codings MUST be listed in the order in which they were applied.

Interesting.  I wonder how many current implementations can handle

	Transfer-Encoding: chunked, chunked, chunked

I know mine can't.

John Franks
Received on Saturday, 13 December 1997 09:58:39 UTC

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