DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38070>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38070 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-02-21 20:39 ------- Notwithstanding a semantically flawed sentence in a draft which expired over six years ago, a CGI script which includes cache validation headers in its response cannot rely on a status code of 200 being returned to the client. An HTTP/1.1 proxy may return a 304 response without troubling the server; or if it has to transmit the request via an HTTP/1.0 proxy it may convert a conditional GET to a HEAD whose 200 response may be converted to a 304 if the conditions are satisfied. Insisting that a 200 response with cache validation headers be transmitted unchanged is futile. The draft supposedly encodes current CGI practice, but I suspect that in the area of cache validation headers in CGI-generated responses there is no current practice to encode. The documentation for mod_asis says "A Status: header is also required", where 'required' implies that it can never be omitted. Since the header handling is common with mod_cgi the documentation is plainly wrong. I have removed the Status line from my 802 .asis files with no ill effects. Whatever the outcome of the argument about "Status: 200" with a "Last-Modified:" which satisfies a conditional request, I'm going to have to continue to patch ap_scan_script_header_err to include my "ETag:" headers in the check. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
