On Mar 9, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: > Yes. I should definitely fix that, whether or not I implemented > chunked transfers.
FWIW, chunked transfers *are* implemented on the receiving side; there are tests in net/url/tests (sp?) that explicitly check the ability to reassemble chunked data when it comes back as a response, so this may be as simple as making the right call in the right place. John > > Jay > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:18 PM, John Clements <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Mar 9, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: >> >>> There is nothing going wrong with the supported features of the Web >>> server. It's just that the Web server doesn't support any >>> Transfer-Encoding other than the default of no encoding. >> >> From RFC2616: >> >> "A server which receives an entity-body with a transfer-coding it does not >> understand SHOULD return 501 (Unimplemented), and close the connection. A >> server MUST NOT send transfer-codings to an HTTP/1.0 client. " >> >> Am I right in thinking that we're falling afoul of this "should", making us >> a "conditionally compliant" implementation of HTTP/1.1? >> >> John >> > > > > -- > Jay McCarthy <[email protected]> > Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University > http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay > > "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
