- From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:39:27 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > On 13/04/2010, at 6:36 PM, Wenbo Zhu wrote: > >>>> While rfc-2616 doesn't require all the headers appear in the HEAD >>>> response, the confusion here mostly lies in whether Transfer-Encoding >>>> is applicable for a HEAD response (as it is the case for >>>> Content-Length). >>> >>> See: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-09#section-3.4 >>> >>> which should clarify this. >> Well, this is not directly related to HEAD response. > > See step 1: Well, this brings up my original question: if C-L is considered a valid header for HEAD response, then transfer-encoding should be too, i.e. in the context of 3.4 Message Length. > >> and any response to a HEAD request > > Cheers, > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 17:39:57 UTC