- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:13:23 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
FWIW, I used this: http://gist.github.com/580078 On 22/09/2010, at 10:19 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 21.09.2010 07:37, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> On Sep 20, 2010, at 10:28 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote: >> >>> From the brief discussion amongst the Chrome network developers, we plan to discard the response and display an error. >> >> Thank you. That is a very sensible solution and I am more >> than happy to spec it that way if we can get rough consensus >> (and hopefully some running code). > > I just did a few tests with current versions IE/FF/Op/Saf/Chrome. > > Observations: > > 1) some pick the first Content-Length header (Op/Chr/Saf/IE), FF picks the second > > 2) some close the connection (Op/IE), some do not > > 3) most parse multiple lenghts in a single header just like multiple headers, except for FF which then ignores the header and reads until EOF > > 4) all are ok with multiple header instances having the same value > > I think this is good news in that there's no interop for broken messages, thus whatever we decide to do is unlikely to break existing content. > > Best regards, Julian > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 13:13:57 UTC