- From: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:24:01 -0500 (CDT)
- To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, John Franks wrote: > There is a set of headers which clients need to have before the > entity body arrives. There is a set of headers which servers > can only calculate after the entity body has been served. > > The good news is that all the evidence so far indicates that the > intersection of these two sets is empty. > > The bad news is there does not seem to be a one sentence > characterization of either set. > > Most likely we will have to enumerate one set and say that the > other set is its complement. I see no clear case for picking one > over the other. Where it makes a difference is for headers that cannot be enumerated, i.e. headers not defined in the HTTP spec. If a client can ignore all (or all except some?) header fields sent in footers and still be compliant, then I think it doesn't really matter. But there should then be some note warning server implementers about it. Btw, the current BNF allows only entity-header fields in footers. "Vary" is not classified as an entity-header, so this would also have to change if Vary should be allowed. Klaus
Received on Friday, 5 September 1997 11:26:59 UTC