- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:06:13 +0200
- To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- CC: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-07-22 08:16, Zhong Yu wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: >> >> On 22 July 2014 13:36, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> What is the end-to-end semantics though? As far as the application is >>> concerned, the request-response cycle has the same semantics whether >>> or not 100-continue is exchanged under the hood. >> >> >> The semantic that the client application is seeking is confirmation from the >> origin server that it has inspected the headers and has consented for the >> body to be sent. > > This is a new way of interpreting it, but it's probably not the > original intent, and it's not supported by the text of the spec. If a > server does not respond with 100, it doesn't mean the body is > forbidden to be sent; the client can always send the body regardless > of server response(s). > .... Instead of sending the 100, the server can immediately send a 4xx error code. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 10:06:45 UTC