Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Organization: WebThing Ltd
To: Apache HTTPD <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug 38070]  - httpd returns status code 200 instead 304,
 but logged 304 in log.
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:45:39 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3
References: <20060221094944.02A6EDD@ajax.apache.org>
 <200602211132.10818.nick@webthing.com> <20060221145603.GD5931@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060221145603.GD5931@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200602211545.41588.nick@webthing.com>

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 14:56, Joe Orton wrote:

> > > >I've prepared a (simpler) alternative patch, which fixes the real
> > > > issue and will make packages available for testing.
> >
> > Sure, it's a better fix to the particular example that was posted.  But
> > that's only because that example was a misuse of the CGI "Status" header.
> > Taken more generally, that patch breaks CGI by *preventing* it doing
> > something that the CGI spec permits.
>
> Well, interaction between CGI scripts and conditional request processing
> is not specified by the CGI spec (AFAICS anyway).

Not as such.  It doesn't need to: it's a MUST in CGI:

7.2.1.3. Status  
 The "Status" header field is used to indicate to the server what status code 
the server MUST use in the response message.

Your patch breaks that, plain and simple.

-- 
Nick Kew