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
|