- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:20:12 -0500
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > p2 4.3.2 says: > > Aside from the payload header fields (Section 3.3), the server SHOULD send the same header fields in response to a HEAD request as it would have sent if the request had been a GET. Just to be clear, this sentence *allows* payload headers to be sent, correct? On the other hand, the wording seems to imply that if a payload header is sent, it doesn't have to be what it would be if the request had been a GET. Does it actually intend to say the server SHOULD send the same header fields in response to a HEAD request as it would have sent if the request had been a GET, except that the payload header fields can be omitted. However I don't understand the "except" clause - why not require *all* header fields to be sent as if they would be for a GET request. Zhong Yu > > The payload header fields include Content-Length, which in my testing is pretty common in HEAD responses. Was this an oversight, or intentional? > > (We already have an exception for HEAD responses in p1's message body length algorithm, section 3.3.3). > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > >
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 17:20:39 UTC