- From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:55:48 -0800 (PST)
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- cc: Scott Nichol <snicholnews@scottnichol.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Which agrees with the point that this was incompletely specified in the RFC. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2002JulSep/0026.html On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Mark Baker wrote: > > This question pops up every few years. Read this thread over; > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2002JulSep/thread.html#msg24 > > Mark. > > On 11/29/07, Scott Nichol <snicholnews@scottnichol.com> wrote: > > > > Section 4.3 states > > > > <quote> > > The presence of a message-body in a request is signaled by the inclusion > > of a Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding header field in the request's > > message-headers. A message-body MUST NOT be included in a request if the > > specification of the request method (Section 5.1.1) does not allow > > sending an entity-body in requests. > > </quote> > > > > I do not see any place in the specification where it says that any > > request does not allow sending an entity-body. I might guess that GET > > and HEAD do not allow an entity-body, but isn't the spec supposed to > > remove guesswork? The spec would be better if, for each request method, > > it were stated whether or not an entity-body is allowed. > > > > Scott Nichol > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 00:56:02 UTC