- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 13:03:30 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:43 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." > > ? I think that would lead to more philosophical arguments than simply removing the sentence (it is a stupid requirement). ....Roy
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 11:04:23 UTC