- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:00:55 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Julian Reschke wrote: >> "The recipient of the entity MUST NOT ignore any Content-* (e.g. >> Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement and MUST >> return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases." >> >> It's not clear to me what Content-* headers are? All headers starting >> with the character sequence "Content-"? Just those defined in RFC2616? >> >> Furthermore, that language sounds as if a server that ignores >> Content-Language (as opposed to storing it with the entity) MUST reject >> PUT requests that come with a Content-Language header. Is this really >> intended? Does anybody implement that? > > I do not think it sounds like that, and don't think it's unclear which > headers are Content-* headers. If you understand or implement Content- Well, I think you're using a _very_ liberal interpretation. How can you say a server "implements" Content-Language, when it just drops the value? > Language, you may "ignore" it as far as the requirement goes, and there > seem to be other valid forms of not ignoring a header. I would read this > as "reject content you don't understand"; if you don't do content-range > or content-encoding, that does indeed seem the only sensible course of > action. Less so for Content-Script-Type or Content-MD5. It seems to me that this requirement currently is ignored in practice (will have to write test cases). This is a problem, either with the spec text, or with the implementations. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 18:02:13 UTC