IMHO, it doesn't sound very good for any of our documents to talk about what
non-conforming implementations should be doing. In no way (either implied or
explicitly) should we be advocating non-compliant implementations. I think this
text falls in the "implied" category, and should not be included.
Just my $0.02
Hastings, Tom N wrote:
> With respect to Issue 2.7, the answer is proposed to be:
>> Add to the IIG (IPP Implementers Guide):
>> Clients should anticipate that the IPP server may chunk responses and should
> handle them. However, a client that is not fully conformant MAY attempt to
> request an HTTP 1.1 server to not use chunking in its response to an
> operation by using the following HTTP header:
>> TE: identity
>> This mechanism should not be used by an IPP server to disable an IPP client
> from chunking a request.
>> So I guess we need to keep it that way, ok?
>> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Larry Masinter [mailto:masinter at parc.xerox.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 23:46
> >To: Hastings, Tom N
> >Cc: Carl-Uno Manros; Xavier Riley
> >Subject: RE: Disabling chunking responses
> >> Is this technique for disabling chunking ok to use?
> >I'm suspicious, but it looks legal.
> >> How wide-spread is its support?
> >This is something that I don't know; there are reports of
> >support, but it's a market issue rather than a technical
> >one. Test.
> >> Is it an HTTP 1.1 only feature?
> >Chunking is HTTP/1.1 only, so disabling it is too.
> >Sorry I can't be more helpful.