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

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:13:26 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=oOr1RCfgiz1tosd-_uOLR7uX+MOrhjwkqsUuh@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: (wrong string) ™ˆ™˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 11.10.2010 19:18, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>
>>> So, how about (for now):
>>>
>>> "...If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it either
>>> SHOULD
>>> be treated as error, or otherwise the message-body length SHOULD be
>>> determined by reading the connection until it is closed; an error SHOULD
>>> be
>>> indicated to the user."
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> I would say:
>>
>> "...If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it MUST
>> be treated as error."
>>
>> (or at the SHOULD-level if you're scared of MUST-level requirements).
>
> Well, "MUST be treated as error" isn't really helpful; it doesn't require
> any observable behavior.
>
> That a response message like this *is* broken is a statement of fact; the
> question is whether we want to require any specific handling. So, for
> instance, do we want to forbid any of the behaviors we see today? (use the
> first value/use the second value/use until end of connection)?

I see.  I meant that the user agent MUST close the socket and ignore
the response, or whatever the HTTP spec idiom is for instructing the
user agent to treat this response as a fatal error.

Adam
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 16:14:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:28 GMT