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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:00:55 +0200
Message-ID: <46A78FD7.6090407@gmx.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * 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-

Well, I think you're using a _very_ liberal interpretation. How can you 
say a server "implements" Content-Language, when it just drops the value?

> 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.

It seems to me that this requirement currently is ignored in practice 
(will have to write test cases). This is a problem, either with the spec 
text, or with the implementations.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 18:02:13 GMT

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