- From: David - Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 12:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
- Cc: James@osf.org, Gosling <jag@scndprsn.eng.sun.com>, NED@sigurd.innosoft.com, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Tue, 9 May 1995, Rich Salz wrote: > > It is not an > > unreasonable burden on HTTP servers to require accurate content-length > > It requires that all documents returned by the server by pre-scanned. > There are apparently often times it is unreasonable. Sorry, I haven't heard an example yet which doesn't reflect laziness or poor design. For the subset of cases where the size isn't known (e.g., CGI output), data could be delivered in a series of precisely size computed chunks with the last chunk so marked. > Which do you prefer? > foo | bar > foo >tmp ; bar <tmp The burden for the two step process falls on the information provider, not the network and not the consumer. Performance optimizations can be applied best at the source. foo | bar is really foo | [net] | [ua] > tmp ; < bar.ua
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 1995 12:16:40 UTC