Julian Reschke
Julian Reschke
Looks good. How would you have a body on 1xx, though?
@yschimke - sorry for not checking before and submitting a dupe. That said, this really needs to be treated as "bug", not an "enhancement".
"Range" is not a list-based field, so the first two of your examples are invalid. Is there a specific reason why you want to introduce a new syntactical variant?
> It's my understanding that a naïvely-combining intermediary can rewrite the first two examples. At which point the distinction is lost. yes. > I thought that because of that there...
> I haven't surveyed other clients, but it seems pretty clear what servers are doing (perhaps not in detail, but they're emitting whitespace without quotes). My assumption is that they...
Truncating isn't a good idea, indeed. The "proper" approach would be to ignore the filename information, as the parameter does not parse as spec'd.
> The entire header doesn't parse as specced, though, not just some subset of it. That's the pedantic point of view (which I happen to like). But one could argue...
> Yes, but. > > If we do this, we'll also need to define the QUERY semantics for this content type, no? Should I give that a try?
Not sure. It implies an additional roundtrip, no?