- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:40:14 -0500
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Jeffrey Mogul wrote: > [...] > So, based as before on the Robustness Principle, and especially given > the general lack of definitive statements about this kind of problem > in the HTTP/1.1 spec, that we're better off with servers ignoring > malformed non-mandatory headers, rather than sending status-400 > responses. > [...] That gets to my point, which John Franks didn't quite get right. My remark was, Why send a 416 in response to a well-formed header (whose byte-range-spec is unsatisfiable), but respond with 200 to a malformed header? Why the distinction, in other words? The Robustness Principle would argue against the 416 response, too, wouldn't it? Surely the Content-Length or equivalent would be enough to clue the recipient that the byte-range-spec was unsatisfiable. Dave Kristol
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 1997 06:46:06 UTC