- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 08:02:55 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <53B3B835.80807@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: >On 2014-07-02 09:35, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <53B3AD3A.8020307@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: >> >>> The reason I ask is that people might start putting ":status" into a >>> trailer and expect that to have an effect (it would be nice to have that >>> feature, but it wouldn't map to 1.1...). >> >> It would also be pretty pointless: It would just shift the buffering >> responsibility from the server to the client. > >What I meant is: an *additional* :status (such as in first claiming >everything is ok -- 200, then start streaming and failing, and then send >a 500 in the trailers). And if that is a risk, the client can do only one thing: Buffer the response, until it is sure what the :status will be. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 08:03:17 UTC