- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:43:47 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > ... > Big objection. 205 was added late in the process of 2068 and > could not be grandfathered into the message parsing algorithm > as yet another (bad) exception. The requirement that 205 not > include an entity means that the message-body MUST be of zero size > (i.e., Content-Length must be supplied with a value of 0 > or Transfer-Encoding chunked is used with a zero-length chunk). > > Hence, it is correct as specified, albeit confusing. It will > be less confusing when the terminology is cleaned up. > ... Yes, I was wondering about that (and duplicated language about special cases in Part 1 & 2). So, shouldn't we change part of the description for status 205 from "The response MUST NOT include an entity." to "The response MUST include a zero-length entity." ? BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 10:44:33 UTC