W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: PATCH thoughts...

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:02:17 -0600 (MDT)
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0404301555440.3309@measurement-factory.com>

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> They should check the Transfer-Encoding and Content-Length headers:
> if either exist, there's a body. Transfer-Encoding has precedence.

Yes, and _only_ those headers.

> If neither exist, there's a body if Content-Type is
> multipart/byteranges.

Sending a multipart/byteranges request is, in general, a violation of
the following MUST NOT:

   This media type
   UST NOT be used unless the sender knows that the recipient can arse
   it

That is why, I guess, RFC 2616 goes on to say, explicitly (but
informally):

   The presence of a message-body in a request is signaled by the
   inclusion of a Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding header field in
   the request's message-headers.

Many (most?) implementations cannot handle requests with bodies except
for PUT and POST, especially if the body is chunked.

Alex.
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 18:36:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:30 GMT