- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:14:01 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-07-02 10:02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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. Hm? That would imply buffering all responses before displaying them?
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 08:14:41 UTC