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

Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:55:48 -0800 (PST)
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
cc: Scott Nichol <snicholnews@scottnichol.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0711291654310.29189-100000@egate.xpasc.com>


Which agrees with the point that this was incompletely specified in the
RFC. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2002JulSep/0026.html

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Mark Baker wrote:

>
> This question pops up every few years.  Read this thread over;
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2002JulSep/thread.html#msg24
>
> Mark.
>
> On 11/29/07, Scott Nichol <snicholnews@scottnichol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Section 4.3 states
> >
> > <quote>
> > 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. A message-body MUST NOT be included in a request if the
> > specification of the request method (Section 5.1.1) does not allow
> > sending an entity-body in requests.
> > </quote>
> >
> > I do not see any place in the specification where it says that any
> > request does not allow sending an entity-body.  I might guess that GET
> > and HEAD do not allow an entity-body, but isn't the spec supposed to
> > remove guesswork?  The spec would be better if, for each request method,
> > it were stated whether or not an entity-body is allowed.
> >
> > Scott Nichol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 00:56:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT