- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
> But if the consensus is that Content-Length doesn't belong in the footer,
> then perhaps we need to define a new "footer-eligible" header that
> serves purpose that we are looking for: "Stop this response, I didn't
> mean it when I said '200' back in the header". E.g., a new header
> called "Failed:" which can convey an updated status code and message.
>
> E.g.,
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> ...
> Transfer-Encoding: Chunked
>
> 18
> This is a complete
> 0
> Failed: 500 Internal Server Error
>
> Just a modest proposal, of course.
Well, independant of whether Content-Length belongs in the footer, I was
uncomfortable with the side-effect usage proposed earlier. What you
proposed above is close to what I was thinking of suggesting.
An alternate less modest proposal ....
0
Reset-Response: xxx abcde asdl
CRLF
Where the xxx... is a status code and interpretation. With appropriate
status codes (appropriate to be defined), a replacement response would
immediately follow and might be a full error response with optional
content. This approach appeals to me because is allows for the maximum
amount of communication between the server and the user for problem
understanding/ resolution.
Yeah .... I agree ... either of these may be out of scope for the
transition we are facting from propsed->draft.
Dave Morris
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 1997 16:28:10 UTC