- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:13:35 PDT
- To: luotonen@netscape.com
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> For the transition phase I still think that we should add Lou's SIZE > parameter to I-M-S. Most of the cache corruption is truncation due to > the fact that HTTP uses closing of connection as EOF and far too many > implementations leave truncation unnoticed (and it's not even possible > to notice it if there is no C-L header). Why is getting someone to pay attention to 'size' easier than getting them not to cache truncated data or data without C-L? If the data didn't have a C-L in the first place, how would the server be able to check the length against a I-M-S parameter?
Received on Thursday, 17 August 1995 23:15:42 UTC