https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35217
--- Comment #10 from Co-Advisor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 11:05:45 PST --- > Your original bug was that the entry that you posted (Cache-control: > "xxxx"=blah) was a valid extension directive. Not exactly. There were two test cases in the original bug report. The first case is using the questionable quoted string as the directive name. The second test case does not. I do not recall claiming that both directives are perfectly valid -- I know that one of them is of questionable validity, but that is not the issue in this bug report. > But as per the RFC, it is not. > The question now, is as to what the httpd should do when faced with an invalid > entry. That question is possible for the first test case but not for the second. And even for the first test case, I would not be surprised if httpd actually ignores directives it considers invalid. If that is correct, that the first test case is still good as it illustrates that httpd is not interpreting the invalid directive as invalid. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
