Content-length header (was Re: request for new forms...)

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Oct 93-present
• Next message: Tony Sanders: "Re: Content-length header (was Re: request for new forms...) "
• Previous message: David C. Martin: "Re: request for new forms submission consensus "
• In-reply-to: Tony Sanders: "Re: request for new forms submission consensus "

X-Delivered: at request of secret on dxcern.cern.ch
Message-id: <9310121803.AA27829@thud.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: sanders@bsdi.com
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Content-length header (was Re: request for new forms...)
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Oct 1993 10:53:43 CDT."
             <9310111553.AA26916@austin.BSDI.COM> 
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 14:03:28 -0400
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu

Tony Sanders writes...

> As you know I'm for just using the POST method.  See example below of how
> I think this should work.
[...]
> 
> Example form:
>     <FORM ACTION="http://www.bsdi.com/hyplan/sanders.html">
>     <INPUT NAME="name">
>     </FORM>
> 
> Client:
>     POST /hyplan/sanders.html HTTP/1.0
>     Content-Length: 13
>     MIME-Version: 1.0
>     Content-type: www/form

[...]

I know HTTP isn't SMTP, but I feel compelled to point out that the
Content-Length header is not blessed by any standard.  In fact, there is no
definition.  The MIME working group explicitly decided NOT to include such a
header in MIME, because it could not be made to work correctly over the
variety of mail transports in existance.

(The current popular use of Content-Length in RFC 822 based email is both
nonstandard and hazardous.  At best it is useless information.)

You could call this use of Content-Length a part of the HTTP protocol, but I
believe it will confuse the issue to use Content-Length in this manner.  It
looks too much like a email header, and I fear this usage will only add to
the confusion.

Keith