W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

RE: Content negotiation for request bodies

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:27:08 -0700
To: "'Henrik Nordstrom'" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001c01c8858b$aaaf4260$4001a8c0@T60>

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 10:24 -0800, Brian Smith wrote:
> > There aren't any agreed-upon expectations for how 
> > compressed request bodies are processed; that is
> > the problem.
> I disagree.
> Content-Encoding is an entity header.
> PUT is defined as storing the enclosed entity, which includes 
> any entity-headers.
> The loophole is that it's not specified how PUT affects the 
> state of a server, which by side-effect allows for servers to 
> perform any processing they like of the entity enclosed in 
> PUT before storage. But the fact that something is allowed by 
> side-effect do not mean that thats the intended behavior.

That sounds sensible, but (a) it doesn't help in the case that the
server rejects requests with a Content-Encoding header, and (b) many
servers do not follow the requirement to store all the entity headers.
At best, servers store the entity headers that they understand. But, it
isn't sensible or safe for them to parrot headers they don't understand.
That is why I raised the "unknown and misplaced headers as entity
headers" issue.

- Brian
Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 04:27:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC