- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:29:06 +1100
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Now <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/103>. I very nearly made this an editorial issue, but I thought that it would be good to get general agreement that Content-* is *not* constrained to just those headers defined by RFC2616. Anyone have a problem with that? On 17/02/2008, at 3:32 AM, Brian Smith wrote: > > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Brian Smith wrote: >>> Actually, this is wishful thinking on my part. HTTPbis should have >>> that requirement that Content-* cannot be ignored for any >>> method that uses a request body (especially POST), but RFC 2616 >>> only has the requirement for PUT. Can a new issue be created for >>> that? >> >> Why would that have anything to do with the presence of a >> request body? > > A server processing a GET or DELETE can ignore all Content-* headers > in > the request, because the the request body doesn't have any semantics > for > GET and DELETE, and Content-* describe the request's entity. > > POST, PUT, and PATCH cannot ignore Content-* headers in the request > because those Content-* headers are needed to understand the request > body enough to process it--especially Content-Range and > Content-Encoding. > > Another issue is "What does Content-*" mean? Does it mean all headers > prefixed with "Content-", or just those headers prefixed by "Content-" > that are defined in RFC 2616? > > - Brian > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 00:29:17 UTC