On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Nick Kew<n...@webthing.com> wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> So +1 to the proposed patch; in fact, +1 on unsetting C-L and treating >> HEAD to the same processing as 304. > > +1. Since it's a SHOULD not a MUST, we can be pragmatic > with the headers. > > That's back to Eric's original patch, isn't it?
For a large static file, Ruedigers patch suppresses the C-L entirely (it gets added back in down the chain for my patch, for static files at least) which I thought would make that prefered, if we're confident that we'll never do more than a zlib buffer worth of work the first go-round. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
