W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1998

Re: Has the Content-Length issue been resolved?

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:52:15 -0500
Message-Id: <199801202052.PAA03251@devnix.agranat.com>
To: "Life is hard... and then you die." <Ronald.Tschalaer@psi.ch>
Cc: HTTP-WG@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5230

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, John Franks wrote:

>> Has the Content-Length issue be resolved?  I.e. is the Content-Length
>> value the length before or after a Transfer-encoding is supplied?

>>>>> "RT" == Life is hard and then you die <Ronald.Tschalaer@psi.ch> writes:

  [nice summary of alternatives]

RT> 4) require the "outermost" t-e to be the chunked t-e

RT> I personally like 4) because it requires the least changes to client code,
RT> but I can live with either solution. Note that if t-e's are going to be
RT> computed on the fly then servers will have to resort to chunking anyway.

  Agreed - I thought that Jeffs note proposing this as the easy way
  out was a simple solution that is almost certainly a
  backward-compatible solution, and we've heard nothing to the contrary.

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 1998 13:08:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:04 UTC