httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Sutherland <>
Subject Re: HTTP Protocol question
Date Wed, 09 May 2001 05:27:49 GMT
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Jim Winstead wrote:

> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:42:54PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > Is it reasonable for a client that claims to support HTTP/1.0 to
> > -require- a content length header on all responses?  The client
> > I am working with will discard a response if it does not have a
> > content-length header.  This doesn't sound reasonable to me as the
> > server can signal the end of the response by closing the connection.
> > Looking for the definitive answer before I tell the client maker
> > to fix their code.
> well, rfc1945 makes it fairly clear that content-length is
> optional for responses, and section 7.2.2 confirms that dropping
> the connection is a valid way to signal the end of the response
> in the absence of content-length. the http/1.1 specs make this
> even more clear, of course.
> anyone requiring content-length on responses is going to be sorely
> disappointed in the number of websites they can actually visit.
> for example,,, and all don't send
> content-length. (of course, a wireless device may not be expected
> to talk to 'normal' websites.)

Particularly if the thin client is intended to be used with their own ISP
only, talking via their proxy server? They are clearly violating the RFC
here, but it may not matter in this case - for that matter, it could even
be deliberate? (Unlikely, I suspect, but possible...)

The difference between Microsoft and 'Jurassic Parc':
In one, a mad businessman makes a lot of money with beasts that should be
The other is a film.

View raw message