On fre, 2008-05-09 at 16:01 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Last call. Current proposal: > > ref: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i28 > > In section 4.4 the current text is: > <<< > 2.If a Transfer-Encoding header field (section 14.41) is present and > has any value other than "identity", then the transfer-length is > defined by use of the "chunked" transfer-coding (section 3.6), > unless the message is terminated by closing the connection. > >>> > Here is the porposed clarification text: > <<< > 2: If a Transfer-Encoding header field (Section 14.41) is present, and > has any value other than "identity", then the transfer-length is > defined by use of the "chunked" transfer-coding (Section 3.6) > >>> No, this is wrong. See the section on transfer encoding. The following message header is perfectly legal and is what the "closing the connection" part is about: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Transfer-Encoding: gzip Connection: close What it should read is something like the following: 2. If a Transfer-Encoding header field (Section 14.41) is present, and indicates that "chunked" was the last encoding applied to the message-body then the transfer-length is defined by use of the "chunked" transfer-coding (Section 3.6). 3. If a Transfer-Encoding header field (Section 14.41) is present, and has a value other than "identity", then the transfer-length is defined by closing the connection. The 'Content-Length' and 'multipart/byteranges' rules do not apply to messages using any form of transfer encoding. When transfer-encoding is used the only methods available for delimiting the messages is chunked transfer encoding or when chunked is not used by closing the connection. Side Note: It's illegal to apply any transfer-encoding after chunked encoding simply because it would be a complete waste. Technically the message format do support inner levels of chunked encoding. Regards HenrikReceived on Monday, 12 May 2008 00:15:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:47 GMT