I have a draft proposal for this I'm holding on to that uses extension frames to replace multipart mime. I am holding off publishing it until the basic lower level protocol work is completed. On Oct 4, 2013 3:50 PM, "Osama Mazahir" <OSAMAM@microsoft.com> wrote: > Have we thought about how we are supposed to send a 206 multipart > response in HTTP/2.0?**** > > ** ** > > Section 8.1 of draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-06 states:**** > > ** ** > > Other frames MAY be interspersed with these frames, but those frames*** > * > > do not carry HTTP semantics. In particular, HEADERS frames (and any*** > * > > CONTINUATION frames that follow) other than the first and optional**** > > last frames in this sequence do not carry HTTP semantics.**** > > ** ** > > Trailing header fields are carried in a header block that also**** > > terminates the stream. That is, a sequence starting with a HEADERS**** > > frame, followed by zero or more CONTINUATION frames, that carries an*** > * > > END_STREAM flag on the last frame. Header blocks after the first**** > > that do not terminate the stream are not part of an HTTP request or**** > > response.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 23:11:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:38 UTC