- From: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 18:32:09 +0100
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 02:16:33PM +1300, Adrien de Croy wrote: > that post does, but if you follow the thread through, Roy spells out > clearly what the requirements are, that being that message parsing > should not be dependent on the method, and that therefore (except for > HEAD response for legacy reasons), one should not assume that any > message (request or response) may not have an entity body. If any > message is to have an entity body, it must have a non-zero > Content-Length header, or a Transfer-Encoding header. > > This is required for extensibility - the ability of existing > infrastructure to deal with new methods, which may or may not need to > use entity bodies in requests. > > This is also why there's an explicit requirement for proxies to forward > unknown methods (depending on admin policy of course, but must be > capable of doing it). 1) Where exactly did you find anything explicit for unknown methods? Especially a forward-must... 2) It would be new to me that the spec does force an implementation to contain code for something that can perfectly be switched off. Where does the spec require such a useless thing? Regards, Robert
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2007 17:31:57 UTC