W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Re: Content-Encoding and Content-Type in trailer?

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:22:56 -0700
Message-Id: <9805192022.AA15523@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: "Perry R. Ross" <pross@platinum.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/131

> From: "Perry R. Ross" <pross@platinum.com>
> Resent-From: Andy Norman <ange@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 19:47:21 +0100 (BST)
> To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Content-Encoding and Content-Type in trailer?
> -----
> I have searched the open issues and believe that this is a new issue.
> It seems that including Content-Encoding or Content-Type in the
> trailer of a chunked transfer would be incorrect.  Allowing this would
> require that the entire message body be buffered until the trailer is
> received, so that the content codings may be removed, or the content
> interpreted.  There doesn't seem to be any need for these headers to
> appear in the trailer, since this information should be known before the
> message transfer begins.  As far as I can tell, libwww would not
> correctly
> process a message with Content-Encoding headers in the trailer.
> If I am incorrect in this, or if you are not soliciting public comments
> at this time, please accept my apologies.

I talked with Henrik about this...

This is not a correctness problem; it might be painful, but you have all 
the information you need to deal with the message (chunked is self 
delimiting).  What is more, the client would have to have asked for it 
using TE, so it seems unlikely you would do this unless you had a good 
				- Jim
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 1998 13:28:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC