- From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:14:14 -0500 (EST)
- To: john@math.nwu.edu
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu> wrote: >On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Foteos Macrides wrote: > >> >> As far as "UAs that originate a request, e.g., browsers" are >> concerned, it's risky to chunk a POST submission even if it's known >> that only compliant HTTP/1.1 servers/proxies are in the request chain >> (the origin server might not "put it all together and determine a >> Content-Length" before invoking a CGI script), > >I am not commenting on the riskiness, but aren't origin servers which >are HTTP/1.1 and CGI/1.1 compliant required to do exactly that? That statement was nothing more than a personal opinion "shared" with implementors on the list. It is based on the following reasoning: (1) This WG consistently has backed off from getting involved with a "CGI standard", so being "CGI/1.1 compliant" can't be a rigorous requirement, and it seems "risky" to assume that the HTTP/1.1 protocol overtly addresses all needs of CGI scripts. (2) One might infer that the basic needs are met, because a number of the WG participants care about meeting them, but Roy recently posted a message saying: "I have a feeling that chunked requests will only be usable by specialized applications. A normal CGI script cannot accept chunked, because CGI/1.1 itself requires a Content-Length." any he's far more familiar with the thousands of lines in the -08 draft and associated LAST_CALL drafts than I. :) (3) If the UA were to issue an OPTIONS request concerning CGI compliance, the response could say no more than one about cookies: "I hope so, but who knows what the author of the script put into it?!?" So, it seems "safer" to stick with unchuncked, HTTP/1.0 POSTs, for now. Fote ========================================================================= Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 =========================================================================
Received on Monday, 11 August 1997 10:17:14 UTC