Well... section RFC 2616, section 4.2 states: "... The field value MAY be preceded by any amount of LWS, though a single SP is preferred."
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/7/2005 11:46 am >>> I didn't assume; I guessed :) Thank you for that observation Joe, Content-Length: is most definitely invalid according to the grammar. Although the grammar doesn't account for Content-Length: 0 although LWS is obviously assumed by many clients. I'd suggest that is a grammar bug :) Bill At 12:24 PM 7/7/2005, Joe Orton wrote: >On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:03:33AM -0500, William Rowe wrote: >> Cool. Thank you for the clarification. Final question, please >> verify my guess that; >> >> Content-Length: >> >> is the same as >> >> Content-Length: 0 > >Why would you assume that? > >RFC2616, 14.13: > > Content-Length = "Content-Length" ":" 1*DIGIT > >the empty string does not match 1*DIGIT, so it's not a valid header. > >joe
