W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 14:44:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYgAT99zNrmm00t6jXOvt7UAz+aygdRtNxF6tjZueF7eUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 2010-10-13 22:57, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
>
>> First bug report wrt to this change:
>> http://code.google.com/p/**chromium/issues/detail?id=**59077<http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=59077>.
>>  Indeed, this
>> is a duplicate Content-Length (not mismatching).
>> ...
>>
>
> So it seems that due this type of bug reports, Chrome loosened the check to
> allow multiple instances when the values are identical (which is explicitly
> allowed in HTTPbis per the resolution of #95).
>
> Furthermore, Firefox 7 is now doing similar checks, but adds more header
> fields (Location, Content-Disposition), and also has started to be picky
> about certain field values (such as C-L with a broken integer).
>

Can you explain this checks in more detail so I can see if we want to add
them to Chrome? Or better yet, file a bug report at new.crbug.com.


>
> This is good. I'd like to thank the implementers that they were willing to
> "break" a few pages and deal with the bug reports, in order to make this
> improvement!
>

Also note http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=71802.
HughesNet seems to be injecting bogus CONTENT-LENGTH strings in the
response. I believe I've heard of this happening at least 3 times, all with
HughesNet.


> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Sunday, 2 October 2011 21:44:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:48 GMT