W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88]

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 12:50:19 +0200
Message-Id: <EC4389B6-D09C-4324-8ADA-150659B41714@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote:

> from RFC2616
>
> 10.2.6 205 Reset Content
>
> "... The response MUST NOT include an entity. "
>
>
> 4.4 Message length
>
> "1.Any response message which "MUST NOT" include a message-body  
> (such as the 1xx, 204, and 304 responses and any response to a HEAD  
> request) is always terminated by the first empty line after the  
> header fields, regardless of the entity-header fields present in  
> the message. "
>
> I read this as any 205 response being terminated by the blank line,  
> regardless of any Content-Length, and certainly disallowing  
> chunking?  Sure, 205 isn't given as an example, however the  
> requirement is about any response message which MUST NOT include a  
> message body, which 205 satisfies according to 10.2.6.

Er, that's silly -- I wonder why it is phrased as an example when
the paragraph just above it is quite explicit:

    For response messages, whether or not a message-body is included  
with
    a message is dependent on both the request method and the response
    status code (section 6.1.1). All responses to the HEAD request  
method
    MUST NOT include a message-body, even though the presence of entity-
    header fields might lead one to believe they do. All 1xx
    (informational), 204 (no content), and 304 (not modified) responses
    MUST NOT include a message-body. All other responses do include a
    message-body, although it MAY be of zero length.

This must be a case of too many editors.

....Roy
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 10:50:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT