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

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:13:23 +1000
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <75B1857B-0E94-4477-9FE9-CE297E6A58D6@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:25 GMT