Talk:List of HTTP header fields: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 68.151.173.229 - "" |
|||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
== Cache control information is wrong == |
== Cache control information is wrong == |
||
Pretty much everything in the Cache Control section contradicts the RFC and needs to be fixed, I don't have time though. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.151.173.229|68.151.173.229]] ([[User talk:68.151.173.229|talk]]) 06:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Pretty much everything in the Cache Control section contradicts the RFC and needs to be fixed, I don't have time though. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.151.173.229|68.151.173.229]] ([[User talk:68.151.173.229|talk]]) 06:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
I have replaced that section. [[Special:Contributions/88.96.214.6|88.96.214.6]] ([[User talk:88.96.214.6|talk]]) 13:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:13, 3 December 2008
![]() | Computing Unassessed | |||||||||
|
TODO: Add all missing headers in http/1.1
Add MAY, SHOULD, or MUST
Could/should MAY, SHOULD and MUST be added? A good list can be found here: http://www.and.org/texts/server-http or simply take them out of RFC4229. --85.127.128.31 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Allow
The description of the Allow header is not completely correct. The HTTP/1.1 specification states indeed that for a 405, the server MUST return an Allow header. This does not mean that the Allow header cannot be used in other circumstances.
Also the specification states that clients may add the Allow header when using the PUT method. In that case the server should return an Allow header with the actual methods.
See the HTTP/1.1: Header Field Definitions for more information. Van der Hoorn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.45.238.186 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you fix it then?
cookies
I added Cookie and Set-Cookie... I suggest that these be added to Effects of selected HTTP headers, but I don't think I'm the man for that job.--Jesdisciple (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Content-Type request
Content-Type applies to requests too, if there is submitted data. 200.68.94.105 (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Cache control information is wrong
Pretty much everything in the Cache Control section contradicts the RFC and needs to be fixed, I don't have time though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced that section. 88.96.214.6 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)