On 15 February 2017 at 10:42, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> > To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>; "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" < > ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > Sent: 15/02/2017 1:32:04 PM > Subject: Re: Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 allow bogus Content-Length? > > On 02/14/2017 04:18 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote: >> >> The only true size of a body is what you obtain by counting its bytes. >>> >> >> I disagree. The only true size of a body is the Content-Length value (in >> relevant contexts). >> > > What about for a sender piecing a message together. Where does > Content-Length come from? > > The content existed before you derived or obtained its length. > > When we say "content" do we mean content of the message, content of the representation, or content of the resource? I've always taken content-length to mean the content of the representation[*] -- which, since the demise of T-E, basically means message payload. When we say "body", I hope we're all always talking about message payload. (i.e.: representation · Range · T-E) Reasoning about the _*resource*_ (including file size) is the purview of the application, outside of HTTP transport or semantics. At least, that's how it looks from my ivory tower. [*] something something Range something Cheers -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 01:19:16 UTC