> I wonder where the CGI++ people read that CGI/1.1 > guarantees a Content-Length? The only thing in this area > that I can recall (my references are not currently > available)
Neither is mine, but I'm 99% certain it's in the old Robinson draft, which is as near as we ever had to a formal spec. > It's a little unclear whether you're talking about input > to the script, or output therefrom. For the former, the > CONTENT_LENGTH envariable should always be defined, even > if as a null string. Shouldn't "0" be preferable to a null string? (n.b. CGI++ treats them the same, but also logs an error if it gets null). > As for HTTP/1.1 and the lack of Content-Length.. IIRC that > only happens if the transfer-encoding is chunked, which > isn't supported for CGI anyway. IIRC it happens also when the browser loses the connection. IMHO - for CGI/1.1 at least - it shouldn't call CGI at all when the request is incomplete. -- Nick Kew
