W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: Proposed resolution for the STATUS100 issue

From: Gregory J. Woodhouse <gjw@wnetc.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970717170617.22921D-100000@shell3.ba.best.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3799
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:

> How about this?
>    o  A client MUST be prepared to accept one or more 100 (Continue)
>       status messages prior to a regular response, even if the client
>       does not expect a 100 (Continue) status message.
> -Jeff

How about

Even if a client has not indicated that it is prepared to accept initial
100 responses, it MUST still be prepared to accept one or more 100
responses prior to a final response header (e.g. a 200 response) and the
body of the message.

Gregory Woodhouse
gjw@wnetc.com    /    http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come
up with a better one.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 17:22:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC