- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:19:03 +1300
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20/03/2012 6:53 p.m., Adam Barth wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Adrien W. de Croy<adrien@qbik.com> wrote: >> OK, so what we're saying is that the 0 chunk is basically redundant. > What if you want to send another response? Don't you need to > terminate the first response somehow? ok, I'll re-phrase. The 0 chunk becomes expendable if the server closes. this isn't much different to the case where there's no content length and the server closes without chunking. IMO we should use the information we get though. Other sorts of connection closure (e.g. timeout, no route to dest etc) may indicate another sort of handling is appropriate. Adrien > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Mark Nottingham<mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> It might be worth differentiating between the download use case and normal browsing. > Yeah, there it makes sense not to truncate the response since there > isn't any incremental processing of the response. > > Adam -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 08:19:32 UTC