I will see that the headers are corrected before the final release. On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I assume that the CRLF standard violation is not really essential here > >> but the missing body. > > Bill was absolutely correct about the empty bodies for 204 replies > being OK. > > > IIRC newline (not CRLF or LF) was used in the html standard, apache > > accepts both CRLF and LF, while IIS only accept CRLF. Most browsers > accepts > > both. > > I was talking about HTTP headers, not HTML bodies. The standard > (HTTP_1.0: RFC 1945, HTTP_1.1: RFC 2616) is very clear that CRLFs > not just LFs should be used for HTTP headers. Yes, most browsers > will accept either, but that's no excuse. Postel's Law applies: > "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from > others." JHS should be corrected. > > Martin > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
