W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: i19 Bodies on GET (and other) requests

From: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:34:31 -0500
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1168868071.2939.17.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 17:35 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Background at: 

> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006AprJun/0103>
> Does anybody have any new information / thoughts about this?

It seems to me that inferring anything about the presence or absence of
a body based on the method only creates ambiguous situations when that
inference is in conflict with the explicit indications already defined
by the protocol (the Content* and Transfer* headers).  

The only exception to this should be HEAD.  In retrospect, I think that
HEAD should have defined special headers to express what would have been
in the body descriptors so that there was no ambiguity
(head-content-length would have the value that would have been in
content-length if the method had been GET, etc).

Scott Lawrence
Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 13:34:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:41 UTC