Your interpretation seems reasonable, the catch is "the server is known to be 1.1 compliant". Is it reasonable to infer that if the request is marked as 1.1?
Friday, December 14, 2012, 6:51:20 AM, you wrote: > The comment seem to indicate that a post request always needs a > content-length header. This is different from my interpretation of RFC2616 > which for example states in section 4.4: > > For compatibility with HTTP/1.0 applications, HTTP/1.1 requests > containing a message-body MUST include a valid Content-Length header > field unless the server is known to be HTTP/1.1 compliant.
