- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:27:31 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
My experience has always been that the C-L on a 304 represents the length of the response had it been whole, and I see that as just a clarification of current practice. However, I agree that the SHOULD is too strong here, as it makes several existing implementations non-conformant. Cheers, On 20/09/2012, at 2:46 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2012-09-20 03:22, Zhong Yu wrote: >> In the latest bis draft, a 304 response SHOULD set Content-Length >> equal to the length of the would-be payload body. >> ... > > That was the case since -19 (just clarifying). > > I also note that the requirements in P1 (Content-Length) and P4 (status code 304) do not seem to be totally in sync. > > Best regards, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 17:27:55 UTC