Re: [Fwd: 301/302]

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Wingard, Steve: "RE: [Fwd: 301/302]"
• Previous message: Josh Cohen: "[Fwd: 301/302]"
• Maybe in reply to: Josh Cohen: "[Fwd: 301/302]"
• Next in thread: Josh Cohen: "Re: [Fwd: 301/302]"

Josh Cohen wrote:

> Koen Holtman wrote:
> >
> > >The current status hasn't changed in the past two years, so by any
> > >reasonable definition those scripts (and the browser) have been broken
> > >for a long, long time.
> >
> > CGI script maintenance is a pain, even if these scripts are provably
> > broken in some sense.  I see no reason why 1.1 should inflict CGI
> > maintenance costs which could be avoided by some spec maintenance.
> >
> > Koen.
> 
> Well, what about when foo.cgi is running on a 1.1 server, and
> doesnt give a content-length.
> Is the 1.1 server responsible to detect and chunk that ?

An HTTP/1.1 server can either
	- send Connection: close, return the content without chunking, and
		close the connection; or
	- chunk the content

Dave Kristol

• Next message: Wingard, Steve: "RE: [Fwd: 301/302]"
• Previous message: Josh Cohen: "[Fwd: 301/302]"
• Maybe in reply to: Josh Cohen: "[Fwd: 301/302]"
• Next in thread: Josh Cohen: "Re: [Fwd: 301/302]"