I.e., allow entity bodes on 205? *shrug* In the scheme of things, it's not that important, I suppose, since they're not widely used. However, it seems you'd have the same philosophical debates either way -- "what is the meaning of an entity on a 205 response" vs. "what is the meaning of the entity headers on a 205 response"? On 08/06/2009, at 9:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 11:07:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC