- From: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:34:31 -0500
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 17:35 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Background at: > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006AprJun/0103> > > Does anybody have any new information / thoughts about this? It seems to me that inferring anything about the presence or absence of a body based on the method only creates ambiguous situations when that inference is in conflict with the explicit indications already defined by the protocol (the Content* and Transfer* headers). The only exception to this should be HEAD. In retrospect, I think that HEAD should have defined special headers to express what would have been in the body descriptors so that there was no ambiguity (head-content-length would have the value that would have been in content-length if the method had been GET, etc). -- Scott Lawrence http://skrb.org/scott/
Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 13:34:38 UTC