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 09:38:57 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=AS6Qv3phXc_x0MY-_V6p-BqJ=JzoOo30nKUdP@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 9:21 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 12.10.2010 18:13, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>> 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.
> Yes. As a matter of fact, my proposal wasn't better in that aspect :-)
> So...
> "If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it SHOULD be
> treated as in error by ignoring the message and closing the connection."


Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 16:40:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:55 UTC