- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 23:16:13 +0200
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On tis, 2008-05-13 at 18:16 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > That makes no sense. Specifically, "it's an entity attribute > therefore it is banned with Transfer-Encoding" makes no sense, because > other entity attributes are not banned with Transfer-Encoding. It's banned because Content-Length is BOTH a entity header and a transport header. But unfortunately the specs does not make a clear distinction between transport and message.. Other transport headers are Transfer-Encoding, Connection, Trailer, Upgrade, TE and Keep-Alive. Expect could also be counted as transport but it's another odd beast.. > Imho, RFC 2616 section 4.4 rule 3 (Content-Length is not allowed with > transfer-coding) is illogical and inconsistent with Content-Length > being an entity header. The rule is there only for compatibility, and > might be safe to relax in some cases where the receiver is known to > implement HTTP/1.1. Maybe in some years. Something to revisit for HTTP/1.2. The reals reason why it's there is to prevent badness when chunked encoding is removed by an intermediary hop and the advertised Content-Length does not match the acual length sent by chunked encoding. Regards Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 21:17:01 UTC