Re: HTTP/1.1 ISSUE: TRAILER_FIELDS - Proposed Resolution

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Koen Holtman: "Re: Accept-Transfer header field (was HTTP/1.1 Issues:"
• Previous message: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: "Re: Accept-Transfer header field (was HTTP/1.1 Issues:"
• In reply to: rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com: "HTTP/1.1 ISSUE: TRAILER_FIELDS - Proposed Resolution"
• Next in thread: rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com: "Re: HTTP/1.1 ISSUE: TRAILER_FIELDS - Proposed Resolution"

At 14:02 11/19/97 EST, rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com wrote:
>I don't see the point of the trailer field at all.
>Why not just say, as suggested:

The purpose of the Trailer header field is to provide a general mechanism
describing where headers are in a message, so that it doesn't have to be on
a case by case basis (see also description of problem [1]).

The notion "Only put fileds in the trailer that can be safely ignored by the
client (e.g., Last-Modified)" doesn't really say much as it depends on who
you are (as a client) and what you are doing.

The combination of Accept-TE and Trailer allows the server to put headers
in the trailer and the client to say no thanks.

Henrik

http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1997q3/0659.html
--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk

• Next message: Koen Holtman: "Re: Accept-Transfer header field (was HTTP/1.1 Issues:"
• Previous message: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: "Re: Accept-Transfer header field (was HTTP/1.1 Issues:"
• In reply to: rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com: "HTTP/1.1 ISSUE: TRAILER_FIELDS - Proposed Resolution"
• Next in thread: rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com: "Re: HTTP/1.1 ISSUE: TRAILER_FIELDS - Proposed Resolution"