W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p2: Content-Length in HEAD responses

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:22:54 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130420092254.GT26517@1wt.eu>
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 07:11:57PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> On 20/04/2013, at 7:06 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 06:41:01PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> p2 4.3.2 says:
> >> 
> >>    Aside from the payload header fields (Section 3.3), the server SHOULD
> >>    send the same header fields in response to a HEAD request as it would
> >>    have sent if the request had been a GET.
> >> 
> >> The payload header fields include Content-Length, which in my testing is
> >> pretty common in HEAD responses. Was this an oversight, or intentional?
> > 
> > In my opinion it was intentional, as it's the only way for a client
> > to know the payload size in advance without retrieving the file.
> 
> I was asking if it was intentional that, as currently specified, we say that
> C-L should be *omitted* from HEAD responses.

This is not what I'm seeing in p1/3.3.2 :

   A server MAY send a Content-Length header field in a response to a
   HEAD request (Section 4.3.2 of [Part2]); a server MUST NOT send
   Content-Length in such a response unless its field-value equals the
   decimal number of octets that would have been sent in the payload
   body of a response if the same request had used the GET method.

Maybe I'm missing something or there are inconsistencies with other parts ?

Willy
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 09:23:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC