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 13:03:30 +0200
Message-Id: <64614F42-5F92-422D-BAD7-D4D4B8977AF9@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:43 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."
>
> ?

I think that would lead to more philosophical arguments than simply
removing the sentence (it is a stupid requirement).

....Roy
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 11:04:23 GMT

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