Re: 14.36

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Paul Leach: "Unidentified subject!"
• Previous message: Paul Leach: "Section 14.36 Range, and PUTs"
• In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: 14.36"

Larry Masinter writes:
> The only question is how a server should respond to a request
> indicates a different indication of server length from client's
> expected length.  Any response at all that is self-consistent actual
> length of the object would do. However, we remembered discussion of a
> number of situations where it was *most* useful for the server to
> return the maximum amount of information consistent with the client's
> request.
> 

I'm not really sure what you mean by "Any response at all that is
self-consistent actual length of the object would do".

I've just written a long message to Jeff, giving a scenario which
explains my trepidations--and I agree that my putting them in terms of
semantic transparency (or consistency) was at the limits of
appropriate paranoia.  If that message doesn't clear up where I see
the potential problem, please let me know.  I do agree that only a
really broken client would ignore all the clues available in the
situations Jeff and I envision.  Still....

			regards,
				Ted Hardie

• Next message: Paul Leach: "Unidentified subject!"
• Previous message: Paul Leach: "Section 14.36 Range, and PUTs"
• In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: 14.36"