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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:53:36 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5q2fa3lpc0ilfiv597j3v85q1a1076851i@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Julian Reschke wrote:
>"The recipient of the entity MUST NOT ignore any Content-* (e.g. 
>Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement and MUST 
>return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases."
>
>It's not clear to me what Content-* headers are? All headers starting 
>with the character sequence "Content-"? Just those defined in RFC2616?
>
>Furthermore, that language sounds as if a server that ignores 
>Content-Language (as opposed to storing it with the entity) MUST reject 
>PUT requests that come with a Content-Language header. Is this really 
>intended? Does anybody implement that?

I do not think it sounds like that, and don't think it's unclear which
headers are Content-* headers. If you understand or implement Content-
Language, you may "ignore" it as far as the requirement goes, and there
seem to be other valid forms of not ignoring a header. I would read this
as "reject content you don't understand"; if you don't do content-range
or content-encoding, that does indeed seem the only sensible course of
action. Less so for Content-Script-Type or Content-MD5.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:54:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT