- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:03:50 +1100
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Looks like there's consensus on this one. I've recorded it in Trac and set a milestone for -02. On 03/12/2007, at 4:48 AM, Mark Baker wrote: > > Ah, thanks Mark, I forgot about that discussion. > > IMO, the changes in your/Roy's proposal all impose requirements on > implementations, and/or assume that defining new methods or response > codes which cannot include an entity body is desirable. I expect that > as long as the meaning of the message is clear, then little more need > be said. And in order for the meaning to be clear, we just need to > say that entity bodies don't alter the meaning of the message envelope > around it (i.e. it can be ignored). > > However, that would be a pretty significant change that goes beyond > the constraints of the charter. So I'm content with your proposal > because it does improve upon the current text. > > Mark. > > On 11/30/07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> Previous to this, the most recent proposal on this issue (#19): >> <http://www.w3.org/mid/0B0A6372-C332-40A1- >> AF9D-252B8B1EF0BA@mnot.net> >> >> Not too much discussion happened then; do we need a new proposal? >> >> >> On 30/11/2007, at 7:29 AM, Mark Baker wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11/30/07, Scott Nichol <snicholnews@scottnichol.com> wrote: >>>> The original portion of the spec I was questioning is >>>> >>>> <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> >>>> >>>> If Roy says "HTTP allows a message body on any request", then why >>>> does >>>> the second sentence in the above even appear in the spec? >>> >>> Those aren't inconsistent, but I reckon trying to be prescriptive in >>> that way makes little sense as, IMO, it should be a best practice >>> not >>> to define methods which preclude entity bodies, if only for >>> reasons of >>> extensibility. *shrug* >>> >>>> I was concerned that the spec does not say in the description of >>>> any >>>> request method that an entity-body is not allowed. Based on what >>>> Roy >>>> says, the spec is correct: there is no request method for which an >>>> entity-body is not allowed. That an entity-body for a HEAD or GET >>>> would >>>> be "useless" is not relevant. A client is allowed send one and a >>>> server >>>> must parse it. >>>> >>>> What does "must parse it" imply? >>> >>> There's no requirement that the server *do* anything with the >>> entity body. >>> >>>> I raised this issue because of a specific problem between NuSOAP >>>> and >>>> lighttpd. The former sends a GET with Content-Length: 0 when >>>> fetching >>>> WSDL. The latter responds with "400 Bad Request" because of the >>>> message-body. Would that server behavior be considered out of >>>> spec? >>>> The server presumably "parsed" the request. >>> >>> Yes, the server is buggy. >>> >>> FWIW, the message that kicked off the thread I referenced came to be >>> because of the same problem; some client (the Swiss HttpClient IIRC) >>> inserting "Content-Length: 0" and a server (Tomcat) choking on it. >>> >>> Mark. >>> -- >>> Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http:// >>> www.markbaker.ca >>> Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> > > > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 12:04:13 UTC