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

Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:54:12 +1000
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D6456108-A447-4E66-9BA8-01CCA4D6711B@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
+1; this would allow us to close this issue and change the term later  
if necessary.


On 08/06/2009, at 8:43 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> ...
>> Big objection.  205 was added late in the process of 2068 and
>> could not be grandfathered into the message parsing algorithm
>> as yet another (bad) exception.  The requirement that 205 not
>> include an entity means that the message-body MUST be of zero size
>> (i.e., Content-Length must be supplied with a value of 0
>> or Transfer-Encoding chunked is used with a zero-length chunk).
>> Hence, it is correct as specified, albeit confusing.  It will
>> be less confusing when the terminology is cleaned up.
>> ...
>
> Yes, I was wondering about that (and duplicated language about  
> special cases in Part 1 & 2).
>
> So, shouldn't we change part of the description for status 205 from
>
> 	"The response MUST NOT include an entity."
>
> to
>
> 	"The response MUST include a zero-length entity."
>
> ?
>
> BR, Julian


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 10:54:47 GMT

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