Re: Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded and Content-length

2007-10-16 Thread Nick Kew
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:26:31 +0200 jean-frederic clere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I though that a POST for a form returning Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded must have a Content-length (and no Transfer-Encoding: chunked). But I can't find this in any documentation about it.

win32 binary build, committed to VC6 for life of 2.2.x?

2007-10-16 Thread Eric Covener
Will the transition to a new MS compiler necessarily be on a major release boundary? Or is this really on the table at any given time based on the binaries being more or less a convenience? wrt third-party modules, it seems like we will have to eventually pull the trigger and lead (force) the

Re: win32 binary build, committed to VC6 for life of 2.2.x?

2007-10-16 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Eric Covener wrote: Will the transition to a new MS compiler necessarily be on a major release boundary? Or is this really on the table at any given time based on the binaries being more or less a convenience? wrt third-party modules, it seems like we will have to eventually pull the trigger

Re: Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded and Content-length

2007-10-16 Thread Henrik Nordstrom
On tis, 2007-10-16 at 18:26 +0200, jean-frederic clere wrote: I though that a POST for a form returning Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded must have a Content-length (and no Transfer-Encoding: chunked). But I can't find this in any documentation about it. It's either

Re: win32 binary build, committed to VC6 for life of 2.2.x?

2007-10-16 Thread Jorge Schrauwen
I'd like to give some input on this aswel. Has the compatibility been tested between MSVC80 and MSVC80Free binary - module compilations? I'd like to do some testing on that but my hardware doesn't allow for a vm at my dorm at the moment. On 10/16/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: