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

Re: Last-Modified in chunked footer

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>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970905131425.1298I-100000@xochi.tezcat.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4334
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.

Received on Friday, 5 September 1997 11:26:59 UTC

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