- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:22:44 +1100
- To: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I'll take that as a +1, then. On 28/02/2008, at 12:21 PM, Robert Siemer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:10:37AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> Is it worth strengthening this language? > > Strengthening? Section 4.3. says that the existence of a message > body is > request method dependent. That is mathematically correct, but not > logically: apart from the historic HEAD exception, the existens of a > body is *not* method dependant. (Future methods can not change that.) > > It is generally a good idea to include "why" some things are the way > they are. A note that HEAD is different for historic reasons makes > pretty clear to the reader: don't draw any generic conclusions from > HEAD. > >> >> >> On 29/11/2007, at 10:58 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Robert Siemer wrote: >>>> I read the last sentence as "all other respones - defined in this >>>> spec - do >>>> include a message-body..." >>> >>> You read it wrong. The only possible way that a proxy can forward >>> the response to a method it does not understand is if no method >>> other than HEAD (for legacy reasons ONLY) is allowed to change the >>> message delimiting rules. This applies to anything that uses or >>> extends HTTP and will not be changed. >>> >>> As it happens, CONNECT can't be forwarded by proxies without having >>> understood the method (because it uses a unique request format). >>> That allows non-compliant behavior to be ignored, but it is still >>> non-compliant. >>> >>> ....Roy >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 01:23:05 UTC