Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Django updates
Home
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion #12578: multipartparser.Parser does not accept non-canonical bare CR and bare LF
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Django  
View profile  
 More options Jan 11 2010, 10:56 am
From: "Django" <nore...@djangoproject.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:56:15 -0000
Local: Mon, Jan 11 2010 10:56 am
Subject: Re: [Django] #12578: multipartparser.Parser does not accept non-canonical bare CR and bare LF
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
#12578: multipartparser.Parser does not accept non-canonical bare CR and bare LF
------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- -
          Reporter:  jfenwick       |         Owner:  nobody
            Status:  closed         |     Milestone:        
         Component:  HTTP handling  |       Version:  1.1  
        Resolution:  invalid        |      Keywords:  jython
             Stage:  Unreviewed     |     Has_patch:  0    
        Needs_docs:  0              |   Needs_tests:  0    
Needs_better_patch:  0              |  
------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- -
Comment (by kmtracey):

 Note even if Django is correct per the RFC, if there are non-compliant
 clients in the wild that Django can't deal with because it is strictly
 enforcing the RFC then we might want to look at relaxing the Django
 implementation here. Particularly if there are other server side
 implementations that these clients can work properly with. Adhering to
 standards is great, but if it gets in the way of interoperating with real
 clients that don't have issues with other servers then I don't know we'd
 want to stick with a stance of "we're correct per the RFC". Hence the
 request for more information.  It'd be good to know what these clients are
 (Barney's home-grown client used by exactly 8 machines on the internet or
 something a little more popular?) and some information about servers that
 they currently don't have trouble with.

--
Ticket URL: <http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12578#comment:5>
Django <http://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google