[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] back-building pfs updates
From: |
Florian Weimer |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] back-building pfs updates |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Feb 2004 06:28:39 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i |
Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > If a transfer encoding is applied, no Content-Length: header must be
> > sent.
> Here's what the RFC says:
>
> The transfer-length of a message is the length of the message-body as it
> appears in the message; that is, after any transfer-codings have been
> applied.
>
> This looks to me like the content-length may indeed be sent when there's
> an encoding.
There are additional rules in the section describing the Content-Length:
header.
> > You don't want to perform any encoding for plain files anyway. It just
> > kills server performance.
>
> Sure, but Arch should not be brittle, either. If the response is
> encoded, it looks like Arch would do the Wrong Thing.
The length is just advisory. It doesn't matter much if all lengths are
off by a factor of 4/3 (for base64 encoding).
> > > 3. It appears that for a HEAD request, the content-length is 0. Can
> > > anyone confirm or deny?
> >
> > This looks like a server bug (it's a violation of a SHOULD in the RFC).
>
> In RFC 2616 section 4.4 on Message Length, it says:
>
> Any response message which "MUST NOT" include a message-body (such as
> the 1xx, 204, and 304 responses and any response to a HEAD request) is
> always terminated by the first empty line after the header fields,
> regardless of the entity-header fields present in the message.
>
> Doesn't that mean that the Content-length is 0?
No, it specifically means that the answer to a HEAD request may include
a Content-Length: header, even though the message-body is empty. The
section on the HEAD request clarifies this.
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] back-building pfs updates, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] back-building pfs updates, Tom Lord, 2004/02/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] back-building pfs updates, Aaron Bentley, 2004/02/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] back-building pfs updates, Tom Lord, 2004/02/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] back-building pfs updates, Aaron Bentley, 2004/02/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] back-building pfs updates, Robert Collins, 2004/02/23
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] back-building pfs updates, Florian Weimer, 2004/02/21