- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: 2013年4月21日 09:36:15 +1000
- To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <0824F2BF-BD02-4C92-A4CC-022ACB196F45@mnot.net>
On 21/04/2013, at 3:20 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote: > Does it actually intend to say > > the server SHOULD send the same header fields in response to a > HEAD request as it would have sent if the request had been a GET, > except that the payload header fields can be omitted. +1 I like that, except that perhaps s/can/MAY/ > However I don't understand the "except" clause - why not require *all* > header fields to be sent as if they would be for a GET request. IIRC we allowed that because many implementations don't now, and we don't need to make them non-conformant for interop (since C-L isn't defining the message length in this case). Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 23:36:42 UTC