httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Indraneel Sarkar" <ISAR...@novell.com>
Subject Re: Philosophy, empty body still a request body?
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:56:22 GMT
Well... section RFC 2616, section 4.2 states:
"... The field value MAY be preceded by any amount of LWS, though a single SP is preferred."

>>> wrowe@rowe-clan.net 7/7/2005 11:46 am >>>
I didn't assume; I guessed :)

Thank you for that observation Joe, 

Content-Length:

is most definitely invalid according to the grammar.  Although
the grammar doesn't account for

Content-Length: 0

although LWS is obviously assumed by many clients.  I'd suggest
that is a grammar bug :)

Bill

At 12:24 PM 7/7/2005, Joe Orton wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:03:33AM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
>> Cool.  Thank you for the clarification.  Final question, please
>> verify my guess that;
>> 
>> Content-Length:
>> 
>> is the same as
>> 
>> Content-Length: 0
>
>Why would you assume that?
>
>RFC2616, 14.13:
>
>       Content-Length    = "Content-Length" ":" 1*DIGIT
>
>the empty string does not match 1*DIGIT, so it's not a valid header.
>
>joe




Mime
View raw message