Message267217
I suggest to drop the RESET_CONTENT exception. Content-Length: 0 is explicitly allowed by <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.3.6> option a), and is not very different to the general case IMO. Content-Length was added here to help with buggy clients, see Issue 16088.
But while we are here, I think we should avoid Content-Length for 304 Not Modified. See <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.3.2>. This is a special case a bit like HEAD, where the length would refer to a cached response rather than the “error”/explanation message.
IMO this could be treated as a bug fix for 3.5 and 2.7, and no versionchanged is necessary. What do you think? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2016-06-04 01:22:45 | martin.panter | set | recipients:
+ martin.panter, r.david.murray, deronnax, spaceone, Susumu Koshiba |
2016-06-04 01:22:45 | martin.panter | set | messageid: <1465003365.71.0.62719325325.issue25738@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2016-06-04 01:22:45 | martin.panter | link | issue25738 messages |
2016-06-04 01:22:45 | martin.panter | create | |
|