W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Transfer-Encoding in a HEAD response

From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:39:27 -0700
Message-ID: <j2p83c4e7ff1004131039o4524cb58r3194fbf2e769c34c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> On 13/04/2010, at 6:36 PM, Wenbo Zhu wrote:
>
>>>> While rfc-2616 doesn't require all the headers appear in the HEAD
>>>> response, the confusion here mostly lies in whether Transfer-Encoding
>>>> is applicable for a HEAD response (as it is the case for
>>>> Content-Length).
>>>
>>> See:
>>>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-09#section-3.4
>>>
>>> which should clarify this.
>> Well, this is not directly related to HEAD response.
>
> See step 1:
Well, this brings up my original question: if C-L is considered a
valid header for HEAD response, then transfer-encoding should be too,
i.e. in the context of 3.4 Message Length.

>
>> and any response to a HEAD request
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 17:39:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:18 GMT