- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:07:12 -0700
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > Roy, that’s a hairy diff, I was having trouble with it, It is easier if you skip the html part and just look at the diff on the xml source. Next time I will remember to include the fragment ... http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1908#file1 > but I think it’s saying that you MAY send a CL with a 304 containing the correct size, which is what we want. Given the record of bad practice in this space, might it be worth while to say the server MUST NOT act stupid and send a 0 or anything else inaccurate? -T Given the unbounded set of stupid things a server might do, I'd rather not. However, I can restrict it further. Instead of A server &MAY; send a Content-Length header field in a <x:ref>304 (Not Modified)</x:ref> response to a conditional GET request (&status-304;) in order to indicate the size of the payload body, excluding any potential transfer-coding, that would have been sent in a <x:ref>200 (OK)</x:ref> response. how about A server &MAY; send a Content-Length header field in a <x:ref>304 (Not Modified)</x:ref> response to a conditional GET request (&status-304;); a server &MUST-NOT; send Content-Length in such a response unless its field-value equals the decimal number of octets that would have been sent in the payload body of a <x:ref>200 (OK)</x:ref> response to the same request. Cheers, ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 22 September 2012 07:07:39 UTC