- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:54:12 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1; this would allow us to close this issue and change the term later if necessary. On 08/06/2009, at 8:43 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 10:54:47 UTC