Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88]

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> We have a similar situation around request bodies --
>> A message-body MUST NOT be included in a request if the specification 
>> of the request method (Section 2 of [Part2]) explicitly disallows an 
>> entity-body in requests.
> What I'd like to do in both cases is make it more apparent that the list 
> of exceptions is closed, by not predicating it on an external MUST NOT.

That's a good point.

> In the case for requests, I think the entire sentence disappears, 
> because we have not specified any method that disallow request bodies 
> (unless one of the many WebDAV methods places this requirement on 
> requests, and even then...).

Nope, WebDAV doesn't do that.

 From RFC2616 I see two potential candidates: (1) TRACE (which uses the 
same terminology as the 205 status that started this thread: "MUST NOT 
include an entity"), and (2) CONNECT (?).

> For responses, it would make it something like:
> """
> A message body MUST NOT be included in 1xx, 204 and 304 responses, as 
> well as any response to a HEAD request. Such messages are always 
> terminated by the first empty line after the header fields, regardless 
> of the entity-header fields present in the message.
> """
> ...

Sounds good to me.

> So, -1 on the patch for now.

BR, Julian

Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 09:40:34 UTC