On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:32:50 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Jonas Sicking wrote:
It makes no sense to me to for HTTP say that the total number of bytes
should include HTTP headers. It would be similar to including the TCP
headers in the IP packets
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:32:50 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Jonas Sicking wrote:
It makes no sense to me to for HTTP say that the total number of
bytes should include HTTP headers. It would be similar to including
the
* Jonas Sicking wrote:
Is anyone ever going to be able to get any useful size data for the
headers anyway though? I.e. if we allow headers to be counted as part of
the size, is anyone ever going to be able to do that?
To be able to do that you'd have to have some sort of out-of-band
metadata
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Jonas Sicking wrote:
It makes no sense to me to for HTTP say that the total number of bytes
should include HTTP headers. It would be similar to including the TCP
headers in the IP packets IMHO.
There is a big difference here, an application might not have
* Jonas Sicking wrote:
It makes no sense to me to for HTTP say that the total number of bytes
should include HTTP headers. It would be similar to including the TCP
headers in the IP packets IMHO.
There is a big difference here, an application might not have meaningful
access to the latter, but
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Yeah, I'd very much prefer the Progress Events specification to handle
this so that not all other specifications using the Progress Events
specification need to do so. I agree that a protocol agnostic design would
be good, but that indeed doesn't preclude saying
