Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Agreed, as long as you really mean "zap the content-length header"
> when you say "update the value of the content-length header".
>
> A filter can't ever be *required* to put in the proper content-length
> value. All it can usually do is zap the content-length header and
> rely on the core to do the right thing (using the content-length
> filter or chunked encoding).
What I mean is that when filter-x is run, a content-length header might
exist, ie it cannot be assumed at any point that a content-length header
does not exist.
If as you say the content-length is zapped and readded by another
filter, that's fine then. A filter should not make assumptions about
what headers may or may not exist before it is run.
(am I making sense?)
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
