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

Re: Add: How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)?

From: Robert de Wilde <robert.de.wilde@online.nl>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:27:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4A31306D.8050804@online.nl>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
So if not valid, what would be a better approach? Leaving out the 
content-length or setting it 0 would be valid I guess? What about the 
rest of the body. Each content-location could give back it's own 
header-informatie (like content-length), that would be good right?

What about content-location, is it valid to put content-location inside 
the multiple parts of a multipart/parallel (or related) message?

Trying to find ways within the specification.


Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Robert de Wilde wrote:
>
>> Sorry, the last part was cut off! The 'complete' HTTP header:
>>
>>
>> HTTP/1.1 302 Found
>> Content-type: multipart/parallel; boundary="ping"
>> Content-length: 2048;
>> Accept-Ranges: bytes;
>
> No, the Content-Length determines the length of the message-body
> including any multipart stuff within it.  Multipart has no impact
> on parsing the overall message.  [And this is a bad use of 302.]
>
> ....Roy
>
>
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 16:27:56 GMT

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