Joe, the anecdotes I've heard included the part where people who operate
servers turn off persistent connections, in both HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1,
because persistent connections have revealed incorrect notions of content
length that flip out browsers, and going back to HTTP/1.0 "read until EOF"
by closing the connection makes these problems go away.
I can't tell you this is the RIGHT response to discovering that your server
doesn't have the same notion of content-length as widely-deployed clients,
but this was discussed on one of the W3C mailing lists as one of the reasons
why persistent connections still aren't that common.
Spencer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [SMTP:touch@ISI.EDU]
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 4:35 PM
> To: wessels@ircache.net; jad@pimlico.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: wrec@cs.utk.edu; webmaster@ISI.EDU
> Subject: Re: oh the irony
>
> > To: Duane Wessels <wessels@ircache.net>
> > cc: wrec@cs.utk.edu, webmaster@ISI.EDU
> > Subject: Re: oh the irony
> > X-Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
> > Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:40:26 -0700
> > From: John Dilley <jad@pimlico.hpl.hp.com>
> >
> ...
> > I've heard anecdotal evidence of content length being incorrect
> > in responses and browsers having to accomodate that.
>
> Seems like a browser might not care - just read until EOF.
> Ditto for caches. Why is it necessary to trust this information
> in the header?
>
> Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST