- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:45:33 -0600 (CST)
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Jeffrey Mogul wrote: > > Here's a sketch of a specific proposal: > This looks good > (1) The definition in 7.2.2: > The length of an entity-body is the length of the message-body after > any transfer codings have been removed. > should be retained. At first I thought "maybe we should rename > this the 'entity-length'", but we already use that non-terminal (in > Content-Range) to mean something different. Which maybe should be > changed to use "instance-length", since the "entity-length" used > with a Content-Range has nothing to do with the length of the > entity-body. But I digress. It would be good to do this renaming or at least name the length of the entity-body something. This is the number which Digest authentication needs to use. The current D-A spec uses "Content-Length" and "content length" with the intended meaning of length of the entity-body (the ambiguity of this is how we got into this discussion). Anyway, *some term* should be defined meaning length of the entity-body and that term should replace "content length" and "Content-Length" in the DA spec. Interestingly, the D-A spec contains the sentence. "The HTTP/1.1 spec requires that content length is well defined in all messages, whether or not there is a Content-Length header." Sounds like wishful thinking at this point, but I guess this sentence should be removed if content length is replaced by entity-length. John Franks john@math.nwu.edu
Received on Thursday, 11 December 1997 18:50:29 UTC