Ignore:
Timestamp:
14/06/14 11:20:37 (6 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

update to latest version of rfc2629.xslt, regen all HTML

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/05/p3-payload.html

    r1099 r2726  
    22  PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
    33<html lang="en">
    4    <head profile="http://www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/">
     4   <head profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/">
    55      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
    66      <title>HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation</title><style type="text/css" title="Xml2Rfc (sans serif)">
     
    3131body {
    3232  color: black;
    33   font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
    34   font-size: 10pt;
     33  font-family: cambria, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
     34  font-size: 11pt;
     35  margin-right: 2em;
    3536}
    3637cite {
    3738  font-style: normal;
    3839}
    39 dd {
    40   margin-right: 2em;
    41 }
    4240dl {
    4341  margin-left: 2em;
    4442}
    45 
    4643ul.empty {
    4744  list-style-type: none;
     
    5754}
    5855h1 {
    59   font-size: 14pt;
     56  font-size: 130%;
    6057  line-height: 21pt;
    6158  page-break-after: avoid;
     
    6461  page-break-before: always;
    6562}
    66 h1 a {
    67   color: #333333;
    68 }
    6963h2 {
    70   font-size: 12pt;
     64  font-size: 120%;
    7165  line-height: 15pt;
    7266  page-break-after: avoid;
    7367}
    74 h3, h4, h5, h6 {
    75   font-size: 10pt;
     68h3 {
     69  font-size: 110%;
    7670  page-break-after: avoid;
    7771}
    78 h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a {
     72h4, h5, h6 {
     73  page-break-after: avoid;
     74}
     75h1 a, h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a {
    7976  color: black;
    8077}
     
    8481li {
    8582  margin-left: 2em;
    86   margin-right: 2em;
    8783}
    8884ol {
    8985  margin-left: 2em;
    90   margin-right: 2em;
     86}
     87ol.la {
     88  list-style-type: lower-alpha;
     89}
     90ol.ua {
     91  list-style-type: upper-alpha;
    9192}
    9293ol p {
     
    9596p {
    9697  margin-left: 2em;
    97   margin-right: 2em;
    9898}
    9999pre {
     
    101101  background-color: lightyellow;
    102102  padding: .25em;
     103  page-break-inside: avoid;
    103104}
    104105pre.text2 {
     
    129130table.tt {
    130131  vertical-align: top;
     132  border-color: gray;
     133}
     134table.tt th {
     135  border-color: gray;
     136}
     137table.tt td {
     138  border-color: gray;
     139}
     140table.all {
     141  border-style: solid;
     142  border-width: 2px;
    131143}
    132144table.full {
    133   border-style: outset;
    134   border-width: 1px;
    135 }
    136 table.headers {
    137   border-style: outset;
    138   border-width: 1px;
     145  border-style: solid;
     146  border-width: 2px;
    139147}
    140148table.tt td {
    141149  vertical-align: top;
    142150}
     151table.all td {
     152  border-style: solid;
     153  border-width: 1px;
     154}
    143155table.full td {
    144   border-style: inset;
     156  border-style: none solid;
    145157  border-width: 1px;
    146158}
     
    148160  vertical-align: top;
    149161}
     162table.all th {
     163  border-style: solid;
     164  border-width: 1px;
     165}
    150166table.full th {
    151   border-style: inset;
    152   border-width: 1px;
     167  border-style: solid;
     168  border-width: 1px 1px 2px 1px;
    153169}
    154170table.headers th {
    155   border-style: none none inset none;
    156   border-width: 1px;
     171  border-style: none none solid none;
     172  border-width: 2px;
    157173}
    158174table.left {
     
    169185  caption-side: bottom;
    170186  font-weight: bold;
    171   font-size: 9pt;
     187  font-size: 10pt;
    172188  margin-top: .5em;
    173189}
     
    176192  border-spacing: 1px;
    177193  width: 95%;
    178   font-size: 10pt;
     194  font-size: 11pt;
    179195  color: white;
    180196}
     
    184200td.topnowrap {
    185201  vertical-align: top;
    186   white-space: nowrap; 
     202  white-space: nowrap;
    187203}
    188204table.header td {
     
    204220  list-style: none;
    205221  margin-left: 1.5em;
    206   margin-right: 0em;
    207222  padding-left: 0em;
    208223}
     
    210225  line-height: 150%;
    211226  font-weight: bold;
    212   font-size: 10pt;
    213227  margin-left: 0em;
    214   margin-right: 0em;
    215228}
    216229ul.toc li li {
    217230  line-height: normal;
    218231  font-weight: normal;
    219   font-size: 9pt;
     232  font-size: 10pt;
    220233  margin-left: 0em;
    221   margin-right: 0em;
    222234}
    223235li.excluded {
     
    226238ul p {
    227239  margin-left: 0em;
     240}
     241.title, .filename, h1, h2, h3, h4 {
     242  font-family: candara, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
     243}
     244samp, tt, code, pre {
     245  font: consolas, monospace;
    228246}
    229247ul.ind, ul.ind ul {
    230248  list-style: none;
    231249  margin-left: 1.5em;
    232   margin-right: 0em;
    233250  padding-left: 0em;
    234251  page-break-before: avoid;
     
    238255  line-height: 200%;
    239256  margin-left: 0em;
    240   margin-right: 0em;
    241257}
    242258ul.ind li li {
     
    244260  line-height: 150%;
    245261  margin-left: 0em;
    246   margin-right: 0em;
    247262}
    248263.avoidbreak {
     
    271286  font-weight: bold;
    272287  text-align: center;
    273   font-size: 9pt;
     288  font-size: 10pt;
    274289}
    275290.filename {
    276291  color: #333333;
     292  font-size: 75%;
    277293  font-weight: bold;
    278   font-size: 12pt;
    279294  line-height: 21pt;
    280295  text-align: center;
     
    283298  font-weight: bold;
    284299}
    285 .hidden {
    286   display: none;
    287 }
    288300.left {
    289301  text-align: left;
     
    293305}
    294306.title {
    295   color: #990000;
    296   font-size: 18pt;
     307  color: green;
     308  font-size: 150%;
    297309  line-height: 18pt;
    298310  font-weight: bold;
     
    300312  margin-top: 36pt;
    301313}
    302 .vcardline {
    303   display: block;
    304 }
    305314.warning {
    306   font-size: 14pt;
     315  font-size: 130%;
    307316  background-color: yellow;
    308317}
     
    313322    display: none;
    314323  }
    315  
     324
    316325  a {
    317326    color: black;
     
    328337    background-color: white;
    329338    vertical-align: top;
    330     font-size: 12pt;
     339    font-size: 110%;
    331340  }
    332341
    333   ul.toc a::after {
     342  ul.toc a:nth-child(2)::after {
    334343    content: leader('.') target-counter(attr(href), page);
    335344  }
    336  
     345
    337346  ul.ind li li a {
    338347    content: target-counter(attr(href), page);
    339348  }
    340  
     349
    341350  .print2col {
    342351    column-count: 2;
     
    348357@page {
    349358  @top-left {
    350        content: "Internet-Draft"; 
    351   } 
     359       content: "Internet-Draft";
     360  }
    352361  @top-right {
    353        content: "November 2008"; 
    354   } 
     362       content: "November 2008";
     363  }
    355364  @top-center {
    356        content: "HTTP/1.1, Part 3"; 
    357   } 
     365       content: "HTTP/1.1, Part 3";
     366  }
    358367  @bottom-left {
    359        content: "Fielding, et al."; 
    360   } 
     368       content: "Fielding, et al.";
     369  }
    361370  @bottom-center {
    362        content: "Standards Track";
    363   } 
     371       content: "Expires May 20, 2009";
     372  }
    364373  @bottom-right {
    365        content: "[Page " counter(page) "]"; 
    366   } 
     374       content: "[Page " counter(page) "]";
     375  }
    367376}
    368377
    369 @page:first { 
     378@page:first {
    370379    @top-left {
    371380      content: normal;
     
    396405      <link rel="Appendix" title="C Compatibility with Previous Versions" href="#rfc.section.C">
    397406      <link rel="Appendix" title="D Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" href="#rfc.section.D">
    398       <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.537, 2010-12-30 14:21:59, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">
     407      <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.640, 2014/06/13 12:42:58, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">
    399408      <link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
    400409      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Fielding, R.">
     
    425434            </tr>
    426435            <tr>
    427                <td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
     436               <td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
    428437               </td>
    429438               <td class="right">J. Gettys</td>
     
    496505      </table>
    497506      <p class="title">HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation<br><span class="filename">draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-05</span></p>
    498       <h1><a id="rfc.status" href="#rfc.status">Status of this Memo</a></h1>
    499       <p>By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she
    500          is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section
    501          6 of BCP 79.
    502       </p>
    503       <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note
    504          that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
    505       </p>
    506       <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
    507          documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work
    508          in progress”.
    509       </p>
    510       <p>The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt">http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt</a>.
    511       </p>
    512       <p>The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html">http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a>.
    513       </p>
    514       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2009.</p>
    515       <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1>
     507      <div id="rfc.status">
     508         <h1><a href="#rfc.status">Status of this Memo</a></h1>
     509         <p>By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she
     510            is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section
     511            6 of BCP 79.
     512         </p>
     513         <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note
     514            that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
     515         </p>
     516         <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
     517            documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work
     518            in progress”.
     519         </p>
     520         <p>The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt">http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt</a>.
     521         </p>
     522         <p>The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html">http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a>.
     523         </p>
     524         <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2009.</p>
     525      </div>
     526      <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1>
    516527      <p>The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
    517528         systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 3 of the
    518529         seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part
    519530         3 defines HTTP message content, metadata, and content negotiation.
    520       </p> 
    521       <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
     531      </p>
     532      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1>
    522533      <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues
    523534         list is at &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11</a>&gt; and related documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/</a>&gt;.
    524       </p> 
     535      </p>
    525536      <p>The changes in this draft are summarized in <a href="#changes.since.04" title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-04">Appendix&nbsp;D.6</a>.
    526       </p> 
     537      </p>
    527538      <hr class="noprint">
    528539      <h1 class="np" id="rfc.toc"><a href="#rfc.toc">Table of Contents</a></h1>
    529540      <ul class="toc">
    530          <li>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul>
    531                <li>1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></li>
     541         <li><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul>
     542               <li><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></li>
    532543            </ul>
    533544         </li>
    534          <li>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></li>
    535          <li>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#protocol.parameters">Protocol Parameters</a><ul>
    536                <li>3.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#character.sets">Character Sets</a><ul>
    537                      <li>3.1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#missing.charset">Missing Charset</a></li>
     545         <li><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></li>
     546         <li><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#protocol.parameters">Protocol Parameters</a><ul>
     547               <li><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#character.sets">Character Sets</a><ul>
     548                     <li><a href="#rfc.section.3.1.1">3.1.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#missing.charset">Missing Charset</a></li>
    538549                  </ul>
    539550               </li>
    540                <li>3.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#content.codings">Content Codings</a></li>
    541                <li>3.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#media.types">Media Types</a><ul>
    542                      <li>3.3.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#canonicalization.and.text.defaults">Canonicalization and Text Defaults</a></li>
    543                      <li>3.3.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#multipart.types">Multipart Types</a></li>
     551               <li><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#content.codings">Content Codings</a></li>
     552               <li><a href="#rfc.section.3.3">3.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#media.types">Media Types</a><ul>
     553                     <li><a href="#rfc.section.3.3.1">3.3.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#canonicalization.and.text.defaults">Canonicalization and Text Defaults</a></li>
     554                     <li><a href="#rfc.section.3.3.2">3.3.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#multipart.types">Multipart Types</a></li>
    544555                  </ul>
    545556               </li>
    546                <li>3.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#quality.values">Quality Values</a></li>
    547                <li>3.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#language.tags">Language Tags</a></li>
     557               <li><a href="#rfc.section.3.4">3.4</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#quality.values">Quality Values</a></li>
     558               <li><a href="#rfc.section.3.5">3.5</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#language.tags">Language Tags</a></li>
    548559            </ul>
    549560         </li>
    550          <li>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity">Entity</a><ul>
    551                <li>4.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.header.fields">Entity Header Fields</a></li>
    552                <li>4.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.body">Entity Body</a><ul>
    553                      <li>4.2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#type">Type</a></li>
    554                      <li>4.2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.length">Entity Length</a></li>
     561         <li><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity">Entity</a><ul>
     562               <li><a href="#rfc.section.4.1">4.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.header.fields">Entity Header Fields</a></li>
     563               <li><a href="#rfc.section.4.2">4.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.body">Entity Body</a><ul>
     564                     <li><a href="#rfc.section.4.2.1">4.2.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#type">Type</a></li>
     565                     <li><a href="#rfc.section.4.2.2">4.2.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.length">Entity Length</a></li>
    555566                  </ul>
    556567               </li>
    557568            </ul>
    558569         </li>
    559          <li>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#content.negotiation">Content Negotiation</a><ul>
    560                <li>5.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#server-driven.negotiation">Server-driven Negotiation</a></li>
    561                <li>5.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#agent-driven.negotiation">Agent-driven Negotiation</a></li>
    562                <li>5.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#transparent.negotiation">Transparent Negotiation</a></li>
     570         <li><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#content.negotiation">Content Negotiation</a><ul>
     571               <li><a href="#rfc.section.5.1">5.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#server-driven.negotiation">Server-driven Negotiation</a></li>
     572               <li><a href="#rfc.section.5.2">5.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#agent-driven.negotiation">Agent-driven Negotiation</a></li>
     573               <li><a href="#rfc.section.5.3">5.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#transparent.negotiation">Transparent Negotiation</a></li>
    563574            </ul>
    564575         </li>
    565          <li>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a><ul>
    566                <li>6.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept">Accept</a></li>
    567                <li>6.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept-charset">Accept-Charset</a></li>
    568                <li>6.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept-encoding">Accept-Encoding</a></li>
    569                <li>6.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept-language">Accept-Language</a></li>
    570                <li>6.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-encoding">Content-Encoding</a></li>
    571                <li>6.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-language">Content-Language</a></li>
    572                <li>6.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-location">Content-Location</a></li>
    573                <li>6.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-md5">Content-MD5</a></li>
    574                <li>6.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-type">Content-Type</a></li>
     576         <li><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a><ul>
     577               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept">Accept</a></li>
     578               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.2">6.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept-charset">Accept-Charset</a></li>
     579               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.3">6.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept-encoding">Accept-Encoding</a></li>
     580               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.4">6.4</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept-language">Accept-Language</a></li>
     581               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.5">6.5</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-encoding">Content-Encoding</a></li>
     582               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.6">6.6</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-language">Content-Language</a></li>
     583               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.7">6.7</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-location">Content-Location</a></li>
     584               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.8">6.8</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-md5">Content-MD5</a></li>
     585               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.9">6.9</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-type">Content-Type</a></li>
    575586            </ul>
    576587         </li>
    577          <li>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a><ul>
    578                <li>7.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#message.header.registration">Message Header Registration</a></li>
     588         <li><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a><ul>
     589               <li><a href="#rfc.section.7.1">7.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#message.header.registration">Message Header Registration</a></li>
    579590            </ul>
    580591         </li>
    581          <li>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a><ul>
    582                <li>8.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#privacy.issues.connected.to.accept.headers">Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers</a></li>
    583                <li>8.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#content-disposition.issues">Content-Disposition Issues</a></li>
     592         <li><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a><ul>
     593               <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#privacy.issues.connected.to.accept.headers">Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers</a></li>
     594               <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.2">8.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#content-disposition.issues">Content-Disposition Issues</a></li>
    584595            </ul>
    585596         </li>
    586          <li>9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></li>
    587          <li>10.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references">References</a><ul>
    588                <li>10.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.1">Normative References</a></li>
    589                <li>10.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.2">Informative References</a></li>
     597         <li><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></li>
     598         <li><a href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references">References</a><ul>
     599               <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.1">10.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.1">Normative References</a></li>
     600               <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.2">10.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.2">Informative References</a></li>
    590601            </ul>
    591602         </li>
    592          <li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li>
    593          <li>A.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#differences.between.http.entities.and.rfc.2045.entities">Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities</a><ul>
    594                <li>A.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#mime-version">MIME-Version</a></li>
    595                <li>A.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#conversion.to.canonical.form">Conversion to Canonical Form</a></li>
    596                <li>A.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction.of.content-encoding">Introduction of Content-Encoding</a></li>
    597                <li>A.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#no.content-transfer-encoding">No Content-Transfer-Encoding</a></li>
    598                <li>A.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction.of.transfer-encoding">Introduction of Transfer-Encoding</a></li>
    599                <li>A.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#mhtml.line.length">MHTML and Line Length Limitations</a></li>
     603         <li><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#differences.between.http.entities.and.rfc.2045.entities">Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities</a><ul>
     604               <li><a href="#rfc.section.A.1">A.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#mime-version">MIME-Version</a></li>
     605               <li><a href="#rfc.section.A.2">A.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#conversion.to.canonical.form">Conversion to Canonical Form</a></li>
     606               <li><a href="#rfc.section.A.3">A.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction.of.content-encoding">Introduction of Content-Encoding</a></li>
     607               <li><a href="#rfc.section.A.4">A.4</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#no.content-transfer-encoding">No Content-Transfer-Encoding</a></li>
     608               <li><a href="#rfc.section.A.5">A.5</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction.of.transfer-encoding">Introduction of Transfer-Encoding</a></li>
     609               <li><a href="#rfc.section.A.6">A.6</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#mhtml.line.length">MHTML and Line Length Limitations</a></li>
    600610            </ul>
    601611         </li>
    602          <li>B.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#additional.features">Additional Features</a><ul>
    603                <li>B.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#content-disposition">Content-Disposition</a></li>
     612         <li><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#additional.features">Additional Features</a><ul>
     613               <li><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#content-disposition">Content-Disposition</a></li>
    604614            </ul>
    605615         </li>
    606          <li>C.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a><ul>
    607                <li>C.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></li>
    608                <li>C.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></li>
     616         <li><a href="#rfc.section.C">C.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a><ul>
     617               <li><a href="#rfc.section.C.1">C.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></li>
     618               <li><a href="#rfc.section.C.2">C.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></li>
    609619            </ul>
    610620         </li>
    611          <li>D.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#change.log">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a><ul>
    612                <li>D.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.D.1">Since RFC2616</a></li>
    613                <li>D.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.D.2">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-00</a></li>
    614                <li>D.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.D.3">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01</a></li>
    615                <li>D.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.02">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02</a></li>
    616                <li>D.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.03">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-03</a></li>
    617                <li>D.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.04">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-04</a></li>
     621         <li><a href="#rfc.section.D">D.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#change.log">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a><ul>
     622               <li><a href="#rfc.section.D.1">D.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.D.1">Since RFC2616</a></li>
     623               <li><a href="#rfc.section.D.2">D.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.D.2">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-00</a></li>
     624               <li><a href="#rfc.section.D.3">D.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.D.3">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01</a></li>
     625               <li><a href="#rfc.section.D.4">D.4</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.02">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02</a></li>
     626               <li><a href="#rfc.section.D.5">D.5</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.03">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-03</a></li>
     627               <li><a href="#rfc.section.D.6">D.6</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.04">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-04</a></li>
    618628            </ul>
    619629         </li>
    620630         <li><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></li>
     631         <li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li>
    621632         <li><a href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements</a></li>
    622633      </ul>
    623       <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;<a id="introduction" href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1>
    624       <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">This document defines HTTP/1.1 message payloads (a.k.a., content), the associated metadata header fields that define how the
    625          payload is intended to be interpreted by a recipient, the request header fields that may influence content selection, and
    626          the various selection algorithms that are collectively referred to as HTTP content negotiation.
    627       </p>
    628       <p id="rfc.section.1.p.2">This document is currently disorganized in order to minimize the changes between drafts and enable reviewers to see the smaller
    629          errata changes. The next draft will reorganize the sections to better reflect the content. In particular, the sections on
    630          entities will be renamed payload and moved to the first half of the document, while the sections on content negotiation and
    631          associated request header fields will be moved to the second half. The current mess reflects how widely dispersed these topics
    632          and associated requirements had become in <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
    633       </p>
    634       <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="intro.requirements" href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></h2>
    635       <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.1">The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
    636          in this document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="#RFC2119" id="rfc.xref.RFC2119.1"><cite title="Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels">[RFC2119]</cite></a>.
    637       </p>
    638       <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.2">An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level and all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> level requirements but not all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
    639       </p>
    640       <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a id="notation" href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></h1>
    641       <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#notation.abnf" title="ABNF Extension: #rule">Section 2.1</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a> and the core rules defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>:
    642       </p>
    643       <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#notation" class="smpl">ALPHA</a>          = &lt;ALPHA, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>&gt;
     634      <div id="introduction">
     635         <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1>
     636         <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">This document defines HTTP/1.1 message payloads (a.k.a., content), the associated metadata header fields that define how the
     637            payload is intended to be interpreted by a recipient, the request header fields that may influence content selection, and
     638            the various selection algorithms that are collectively referred to as HTTP content negotiation.
     639         </p>
     640         <p id="rfc.section.1.p.2">This document is currently disorganized in order to minimize the changes between drafts and enable reviewers to see the smaller
     641            errata changes. The next draft will reorganize the sections to better reflect the content. In particular, the sections on
     642            entities will be renamed payload and moved to the first half of the document, while the sections on content negotiation and
     643            associated request header fields will be moved to the second half. The current mess reflects how widely dispersed these topics
     644            and associated requirements had become in <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
     645         </p>
     646         <div id="intro.requirements">
     647            <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></h2>
     648            <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.1">The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
     649               in this document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="#RFC2119" id="rfc.xref.RFC2119.1"><cite title="Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels">[RFC2119]</cite></a>.
     650            </p>
     651            <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.2">An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level and all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> level requirements but not all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
     652            </p>
     653         </div>
     654      </div>
     655      <div id="notation">
     656         <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></h1>
     657         <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#notation.abnf" title="ABNF Extension: #rule">Section 2.1</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a> and the core rules defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>:
     658         </p>
     659         <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#notation" class="smpl">ALPHA</a>          = &lt;ALPHA, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>&gt;
    644660  <a href="#notation" class="smpl">DIGIT</a>          = &lt;DIGIT, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>&gt;
    645661  <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OCTET</a>          = &lt;OCTET, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>&gt;
     
    648664  <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>            = &lt;OWS, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>&gt;
    649665</pre><div id="abnf.dependencies">
    650          <p id="rfc.section.2.p.4">                The ABNF rules below are defined in other parts:</p>
    651       </div>
    652       <div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">absolute-URI</a>   = &lt;absolute-URI, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#uri" title="Uniform Resource Identifiers">Section 3.2</a>&gt;
     666            <p id="rfc.section.2.p.4">        The ABNF rules below are defined in other parts:</p>
     667         </div>
     668         <div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">absolute-URI</a>   = &lt;absolute-URI, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#uri" title="Uniform Resource Identifiers">Section 3.2</a>&gt;
    653669  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">Content-Length</a> = &lt;Content-Length, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.10"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#header.content-length" title="Content-Length">Section 8.2</a>&gt;
    654670  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">relativeURI</a>    = &lt;relativeURI, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.11"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#uri" title="Uniform Resource Identifiers">Section 3.2</a>&gt;
     
    657673</pre><div id="rfc.figure.u.5"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">Content-Range</a>  = &lt;Content-Range, defined in <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>, <a href="p5-range.html#header.content-range" title="Content-Range">Section 6.2</a>&gt;
    658674</pre><div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">Expires</a>        = &lt;Expires, defined in <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>, <a href="p6-cache.html#header.expires" title="Expires">Section 16.3</a>&gt;
    659 </pre><h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;<a id="protocol.parameters" href="#protocol.parameters">Protocol Parameters</a></h1>
    660       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="character.sets" href="#character.sets">Character Sets</a></h2>
    661       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1">HTTP uses the same definition of the term "character set" as that described for MIME:</p>
    662       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2">The term "character set" is used in this document to refer to a method used with one or more tables to convert a sequence
    663          of octets into a sequence of characters. Note that unconditional conversion in the other direction is not required, in that
    664          not all characters may be available in a given character set and a character set may provide more than one sequence of octets
    665          to represent a particular character. This definition is intended to allow various kinds of character encoding, from simple
    666          single-table mappings such as US-ASCII to complex table switching methods such as those that use ISO-2022's techniques. However,
    667          the definition associated with a MIME character set name <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> fully specify the mapping to be performed from octets to characters. In particular, use of external profiling information
    668          to determine the exact mapping is not permitted.
    669       </p>
    670       <ul class="empty">
    671          <li> <b>Note:</b> This use of the term "character set" is more commonly referred to as a "character encoding." However, since HTTP and MIME
    672             share the same registry, it is important that the terminology also be shared.
    673          </li>
    674       </ul>
    675       <div id="rule.charset">
    676          <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.4">  HTTP character sets are identified by case-insensitive tokens. The complete set of tokens is defined by the IANA Character
    677             Set registry (&lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets">http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets</a>&gt;).
    678          </p>
    679       </div>
    680       <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span>  <a href="#rule.charset" class="smpl">charset</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a>
     675</pre></div>
     676      <div id="protocol.parameters">
     677         <h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#protocol.parameters">Protocol Parameters</a></h1>
     678         <div id="character.sets">
     679            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#character.sets">Character Sets</a></h2>
     680            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1">HTTP uses the same definition of the term "character set" as that described for MIME:</p>
     681            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2">The term "character set" is used in this document to refer to a method used with one or more tables to convert a sequence
     682               of octets into a sequence of characters. Note that unconditional conversion in the other direction is not required, in that
     683               not all characters may be available in a given character set and a character set may provide more than one sequence of octets
     684               to represent a particular character. This definition is intended to allow various kinds of character encoding, from simple
     685               single-table mappings such as US-ASCII to complex table switching methods such as those that use ISO-2022's techniques. However,
     686               the definition associated with a MIME character set name <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> fully specify the mapping to be performed from octets to characters. In particular, use of external profiling information
     687               to determine the exact mapping is not permitted.
     688            </p>
     689            <ul class="empty">
     690               <li><b>Note:</b> This use of the term "character set" is more commonly referred to as a "character encoding." However, since HTTP and MIME
     691                  share the same registry, it is important that the terminology also be shared.
     692               </li>
     693            </ul>
     694            <div id="rule.charset">
     695               <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.4"> HTTP character sets are identified by case-insensitive tokens. The complete set of tokens is defined by the IANA Character
     696                  Set registry (&lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets">http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets</a>&gt;).
     697               </p>
     698            </div>
     699            <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span>  <a href="#rule.charset" class="smpl">charset</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a>
    681700</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.6">Although HTTP allows an arbitrary token to be used as a charset value, any token that has a predefined value within the IANA
    682          Character Set registry <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> represent the character set defined by that registry. Applications <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> limit their use of character sets to those defined by the IANA registry.
    683       </p>
    684       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.7">HTTP uses charset in two contexts: within an Accept-Charset request header (in which the charset value is an unquoted token)
    685          and as the value of a parameter in a Content-Type header (within a request or response), in which case the parameter value
    686          of the charset parameter may be quoted.
    687       </p>
    688       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.8">Implementors should be aware of IETF character set requirements <a href="#RFC3629" id="rfc.xref.RFC3629.1"><cite title="UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646">[RFC3629]</cite></a>  <a href="#RFC2277" id="rfc.xref.RFC2277.1"><cite title="IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages">[RFC2277]</cite></a>.
    689       </p>
    690       <h3 id="rfc.section.3.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.1.1">3.1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="missing.charset" href="#missing.charset">Missing Charset</a></h3>
    691       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.1.p.1">Some HTTP/1.0 software has interpreted a Content-Type header without charset parameter incorrectly to mean "recipient should
    692          guess." Senders wishing to defeat this behavior <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include a charset parameter even when the charset is ISO-8859-1 (<a href="#ISO-8859-1" id="rfc.xref.ISO-8859-1.1"><cite title="Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1">[ISO-8859-1]</cite></a>) and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> do so when it is known that it will not confuse the recipient.
    693       </p>
    694       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.1.p.2">Unfortunately, some older HTTP/1.0 clients did not deal properly with an explicit charset parameter. HTTP/1.1 recipients <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respect the charset label provided by the sender; and those user agents that have a provision to "guess" a charset <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the charset from the content-type field if they support that charset, rather than the recipient's preference, when initially
    695          displaying a document. See <a href="#canonicalization.and.text.defaults" title="Canonicalization and Text Defaults">Section&nbsp;3.3.1</a>.
    696       </p>
    697       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="content.codings" href="#content.codings">Content Codings</a></h2>
    698       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.1">Content coding values indicate an encoding transformation that has been or can be applied to an entity. Content codings are
    699          primarily used to allow a document to be compressed or otherwise usefully transformed without losing the identity of its underlying
    700          media type and without loss of information. Frequently, the entity is stored in coded form, transmitted directly, and only
    701          decoded by the recipient.
    702       </p>
    703       <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span>  <a href="#content.codings" class="smpl">content-coding</a>   = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a>
     701               Character Set registry <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> represent the character set defined by that registry. Applications <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> limit their use of character sets to those defined by the IANA registry.
     702            </p>
     703            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.7">HTTP uses charset in two contexts: within an Accept-Charset request header (in which the charset value is an unquoted token)
     704               and as the value of a parameter in a Content-Type header (within a request or response), in which case the parameter value
     705               of the charset parameter may be quoted.
     706            </p>
     707            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.8">Implementors should be aware of IETF character set requirements <a href="#RFC3629" id="rfc.xref.RFC3629.1"><cite title="UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646">[RFC3629]</cite></a> <a href="#RFC2277" id="rfc.xref.RFC2277.1"><cite title="IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages">[RFC2277]</cite></a>.
     708            </p>
     709            <div id="missing.charset">
     710               <h3 id="rfc.section.3.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.1.1">3.1.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#missing.charset">Missing Charset</a></h3>
     711               <p id="rfc.section.3.1.1.p.1">Some HTTP/1.0 software has interpreted a Content-Type header without charset parameter incorrectly to mean "recipient should
     712                  guess." Senders wishing to defeat this behavior <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include a charset parameter even when the charset is ISO-8859-1 (<a href="#ISO-8859-1" id="rfc.xref.ISO-8859-1.1"><cite title="Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1">[ISO-8859-1]</cite></a>) and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> do so when it is known that it will not confuse the recipient.
     713               </p>
     714               <p id="rfc.section.3.1.1.p.2">Unfortunately, some older HTTP/1.0 clients did not deal properly with an explicit charset parameter. HTTP/1.1 recipients <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respect the charset label provided by the sender; and those user agents that have a provision to "guess" a charset <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the charset from the content-type field if they support that charset, rather than the recipient's preference, when initially
     715                  displaying a document. See <a href="#canonicalization.and.text.defaults" title="Canonicalization and Text Defaults">Section&nbsp;3.3.1</a>.
     716               </p>
     717            </div>
     718         </div>
     719         <div id="content.codings">
     720            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#content.codings">Content Codings</a></h2>
     721            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.1">Content coding values indicate an encoding transformation that has been or can be applied to an entity. Content codings are
     722               primarily used to allow a document to be compressed or otherwise usefully transformed without losing the identity of its underlying
     723               media type and without loss of information. Frequently, the entity is stored in coded form, transmitted directly, and only
     724               decoded by the recipient.
     725            </p>
     726            <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span>  <a href="#content.codings" class="smpl">content-coding</a>   = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a>
    704727</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.3">All content-coding values are case-insensitive. HTTP/1.1 uses content-coding values in the Accept-Encoding (<a href="#header.accept-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-encoding.1" title="Accept-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.3</a>) and Content-Encoding (<a href="#header.content-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.content-encoding.1" title="Content-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.5</a>) header fields. Although the value describes the content-coding, what is more important is that it indicates what decoding
    705          mechanism will be required to remove the encoding.
    706       </p>
    707       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.4">The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for content-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry
    708          contains the following tokens:
    709       </p>
    710       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.5">gzip<span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span> 
    711       </p>
    712       <ul class="empty">
    713          <li>An encoding format produced by the file compression program "gzip" (GNU zip) as described in <a href="#RFC1952" id="rfc.xref.RFC1952.1"><cite title="GZIP file format specification version 4.3">[RFC1952]</cite></a>. This format is a Lempel-Ziv coding (LZ77) with a 32 bit CRC.
    714          </li>
    715       </ul>
    716       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.6">compress<span id="rfc.iref.c.1"></span> 
    717       </p>
    718       <ul class="empty">
    719          <li>The encoding format produced by the common UNIX file compression program "compress". This format is an adaptive Lempel-Ziv-Welch
    720             coding (LZW).
    721          </li>
    722          <li>Use of program names for the identification of encoding formats is not desirable and is discouraged for future encodings.
    723             Their use here is representative of historical practice, not good design. For compatibility with previous implementations
    724             of HTTP, applications <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> consider "x-gzip" and "x-compress" to be equivalent to "gzip" and "compress" respectively.
    725          </li>
    726       </ul>
    727       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.7">deflate<span id="rfc.iref.d.1"></span> 
    728       </p>
    729       <ul class="empty">
    730          <li>The "zlib" format defined in <a href="#RFC1950" id="rfc.xref.RFC1950.1"><cite title="ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification version 3.3">[RFC1950]</cite></a> in combination with the "deflate" compression mechanism described in <a href="#RFC1951" id="rfc.xref.RFC1951.1"><cite title="DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification version 1.3">[RFC1951]</cite></a>.
    731          </li>
    732       </ul>
    733       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.8">identity<span id="rfc.iref.i.1"></span> 
    734       </p>
    735       <ul class="empty">
    736          <li>The default (identity) encoding; the use of no transformation whatsoever. This content-coding is used only in the Accept-Encoding
    737             header, and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be used in the Content-Encoding header.
    738          </li>
    739       </ul>
    740       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.9">New content-coding value tokens <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be registered; to allow interoperability between clients and servers, specifications of the content coding algorithms needed
    741          to implement a new value <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be publicly available and adequate for independent implementation, and conform to the purpose of content coding defined in
    742          this section.
    743       </p>
    744       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3.3">3.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="media.types" href="#media.types">Media Types</a></h2>
    745       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.1">HTTP uses Internet Media Types <a href="#RFC2046" id="rfc.xref.RFC2046.1"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types">[RFC2046]</cite></a> in the Content-Type (<a href="#header.content-type" id="rfc.xref.header.content-type.1" title="Content-Type">Section&nbsp;6.9</a>) and Accept (<a href="#header.accept" id="rfc.xref.header.accept.1" title="Accept">Section&nbsp;6.1</a>) header fields in order to provide open and extensible data typing and type negotiation.
    746       </p>
    747       <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  <a href="#media.types" class="smpl">media-type</a> = <a href="#media.types" class="smpl">type</a> "/" <a href="#media.types" class="smpl">subtype</a> *( <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> ";" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#rule.parameter" class="smpl">parameter</a> )
     728               mechanism will be required to remove the encoding.
     729            </p>
     730            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.4">The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for content-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry
     731               contains the following tokens:
     732            </p>
     733            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.5">gzip<span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span>
     734            </p>
     735            <ul class="empty">
     736               <li>An encoding format produced by the file compression program "gzip" (GNU zip) as described in <a href="#RFC1952" id="rfc.xref.RFC1952.1"><cite title="GZIP file format specification version 4.3">[RFC1952]</cite></a>. This format is a Lempel-Ziv coding (LZ77) with a 32 bit CRC.
     737               </li>
     738            </ul>
     739            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.6">compress<span id="rfc.iref.c.1"></span>
     740            </p>
     741            <ul class="empty">
     742               <li>The encoding format produced by the common UNIX file compression program "compress". This format is an adaptive Lempel-Ziv-Welch
     743                  coding (LZW).
     744               </li>
     745               <li>Use of program names for the identification of encoding formats is not desirable and is discouraged for future encodings.
     746                  Their use here is representative of historical practice, not good design. For compatibility with previous implementations
     747                  of HTTP, applications <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> consider "x-gzip" and "x-compress" to be equivalent to "gzip" and "compress" respectively.
     748               </li>
     749            </ul>
     750            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.7">deflate<span id="rfc.iref.d.1"></span>
     751            </p>
     752            <ul class="empty">
     753               <li>The "zlib" format defined in <a href="#RFC1950" id="rfc.xref.RFC1950.1"><cite title="ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification version 3.3">[RFC1950]</cite></a> in combination with the "deflate" compression mechanism described in <a href="#RFC1951" id="rfc.xref.RFC1951.1"><cite title="DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification version 1.3">[RFC1951]</cite></a>.
     754               </li>
     755            </ul>
     756            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.8">identity<span id="rfc.iref.i.1"></span>
     757            </p>
     758            <ul class="empty">
     759               <li>The default (identity) encoding; the use of no transformation whatsoever. This content-coding is used only in the Accept-Encoding
     760                  header, and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> be used in the Content-Encoding header.
     761               </li>
     762            </ul>
     763            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.9">New content-coding value tokens <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be registered; to allow interoperability between clients and servers, specifications of the content coding algorithms needed
     764               to implement a new value <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be publicly available and adequate for independent implementation, and conform to the purpose of content coding defined in
     765               this section.
     766            </p>
     767         </div>
     768         <div id="media.types">
     769            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3.3">3.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#media.types">Media Types</a></h2>
     770            <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.1">HTTP uses Internet Media Types <a href="#RFC2046" id="rfc.xref.RFC2046.1"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types">[RFC2046]</cite></a> in the Content-Type (<a href="#header.content-type" id="rfc.xref.header.content-type.1" title="Content-Type">Section&nbsp;6.9</a>) and Accept (<a href="#header.accept" id="rfc.xref.header.accept.1" title="Accept">Section&nbsp;6.1</a>) header fields in order to provide open and extensible data typing and type negotiation.
     771            </p>
     772            <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  <a href="#media.types" class="smpl">media-type</a> = <a href="#media.types" class="smpl">type</a> "/" <a href="#media.types" class="smpl">subtype</a> *( <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> ";" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#rule.parameter" class="smpl">parameter</a> )
    748773  <a href="#media.types" class="smpl">type</a>       = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a>
    749774  <a href="#media.types" class="smpl">subtype</a>    = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a>
    750775</pre><div id="rule.parameter">
    751          <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.3">      Parameters <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> follow the type/subtype in the form of attribute/value pairs.
    752          </p>
    753       </div>
    754       <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  <a href="#rule.parameter" class="smpl">parameter</a>      = <a href="#rule.parameter" class="smpl">attribute</a> "=" <a href="#rule.parameter" class="smpl">value</a>
     776               <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.3">   Parameters <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> follow the type/subtype in the form of attribute/value pairs.
     777               </p>
     778            </div>
     779            <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  <a href="#rule.parameter" class="smpl">parameter</a>      = <a href="#rule.parameter" class="smpl">attribute</a> "=" <a href="#rule.parameter" class="smpl">value</a>
    755780  <a href="#rule.parameter" class="smpl">attribute</a>      = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a>
    756781  <a href="#rule.parameter" class="smpl">value</a>          = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a> / <a href="#notation" class="smpl">quoted-string</a>
    757782</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.5">The type, subtype, and parameter attribute names are case-insensitive. Parameter values might or might not be case-sensitive,
    758          depending on the semantics of the parameter name. The presence or absence of a parameter might be significant to the processing
    759          of a media-type, depending on its definition within the media type registry.
    760       </p>
    761       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.6">A parameter value that matches the <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a> production may be transmitted as either a token or within a quoted-string. The quoted and unquoted values are equivalent.
    762       </p>
    763       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.7">Note that some older HTTP applications do not recognize media type parameters. When sending data to older HTTP applications,
    764          implementations <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> only use media type parameters when they are required by that type/subtype definition.
    765       </p>
    766       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.8">Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA). The media type registration process is
    767          outlined in <a href="#RFC4288" id="rfc.xref.RFC4288.1"><cite title="Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures">[RFC4288]</cite></a>. Use of non-registered media types is discouraged.
    768       </p>
    769       <h3 id="rfc.section.3.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.3.1">3.3.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="canonicalization.and.text.defaults" href="#canonicalization.and.text.defaults">Canonicalization and Text Defaults</a></h3>
    770       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.1">Internet media types are registered with a canonical form. An entity-body transferred via HTTP messages <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be represented in the appropriate canonical form prior to its transmission except for "text" types, as defined in the next
    771          paragraph.
    772       </p>
    773       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.2">When in canonical form, media subtypes of the "text" type use CRLF as the text line break. HTTP relaxes this requirement and
    774          allows the transport of text media with plain CR or LF alone representing a line break when it is done consistently for an
    775          entire entity-body. HTTP applications <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> accept CRLF, bare CR, and bare LF as being representative of a line break in text media received via HTTP. In addition, if
    776          the text is represented in a character set that does not use octets 13 and 10 for CR and LF respectively, as is the case for
    777          some multi-byte character sets, HTTP allows the use of whatever octet sequences are defined by that character set to represent
    778          the equivalent of CR and LF for line breaks. This flexibility regarding line breaks applies only to text media in the entity-body;
    779          a bare CR or LF <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be substituted for CRLF within any of the HTTP control structures (such as header fields and multipart boundaries).
    780       </p>
    781       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.3">If an entity-body is encoded with a content-coding, the underlying data <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be in a form defined above prior to being encoded.
    782       </p>
    783       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.4">The "charset" parameter is used with some media types to define the character set (<a href="#character.sets" title="Character Sets">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>) of the data. When no explicit charset parameter is provided by the sender, media subtypes of the "text" type are defined
    784          to have a default charset value of "ISO-8859-1" when received via HTTP. Data in character sets other than "ISO-8859-1" or
    785          its subsets <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be labeled with an appropriate charset value. See <a href="#missing.charset" title="Missing Charset">Section&nbsp;3.1.1</a> for compatibility problems.
    786       </p>
    787       <h3 id="rfc.section.3.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.3.2">3.3.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="multipart.types" href="#multipart.types">Multipart Types</a></h3>
    788       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.2.p.1">MIME provides for a number of "multipart" types -- encapsulations of one or more entities within a single message-body. All
    789          multipart types share a common syntax, as defined in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2046#section-5.1.1">Section 5.1.1</a> of <a href="#RFC2046" id="rfc.xref.RFC2046.2"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types">[RFC2046]</cite></a>, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a boundary parameter as part of the media type value. The message body is itself a protocol element and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> therefore use only CRLF to represent line breaks between body-parts. Unlike in RFC 2046, the epilogue of any multipart message <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be empty; HTTP applications <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> transmit the epilogue (even if the original multipart contains an epilogue). These restrictions exist in order to preserve
    790          the self-delimiting nature of a multipart message-body, wherein the "end" of the message-body is indicated by the ending multipart
    791          boundary.
    792       </p>
    793       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.2.p.2">In general, HTTP treats a multipart message-body no differently than any other media type: strictly as payload. The one exception
    794          is the "multipart/byteranges" type (<a href="p5-range.html#internet.media.type.multipart.byteranges" title="Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges">Appendix A</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>) when it appears in a 206 (Partial Content) response.  In all other cases, an HTTP user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> follow the same or similar behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type. The MIME header fields within
    795          each body-part of a multipart message-body do not have any significance to HTTP beyond that defined by their MIME semantics.
    796       </p>
    797       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.2.p.3">In general, an HTTP user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> follow the same or similar behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type. If an application receives
    798          an unrecognized multipart subtype, the application <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> treat it as being equivalent to "multipart/mixed".
    799       </p>
    800       <ul class="empty">
    801          <li> <b>Note:</b> The "multipart/form-data" type has been specifically defined for carrying form data suitable for processing via the POST request
    802             method, as described in <a href="#RFC2388" id="rfc.xref.RFC2388.1"><cite title="Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data">[RFC2388]</cite></a>.
    803          </li>
    804       </ul>
    805       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.4"><a href="#rfc.section.3.4">3.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="quality.values" href="#quality.values">Quality Values</a></h2>
    806       <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.1">HTTP content negotiation (<a href="#content.negotiation" title="Content Negotiation">Section&nbsp;5</a>) uses short "floating point" numbers to indicate the relative importance ("weight") of various negotiable parameters. A weight
    807          is normalized to a real number in the range 0 through 1, where 0 is the minimum and 1 the maximum value. If a parameter has
    808          a quality value of 0, then content with this parameter is `not acceptable' for the client. HTTP/1.1 applications <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> generate more than three digits after the decimal point. User configuration of these values <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> also be limited in this fashion.
    809       </p>
    810       <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.10"></span>  <a href="#quality.values" class="smpl">qvalue</a>         = ( "0" [ "." 0*3<a href="#notation" class="smpl">DIGIT</a> ] )
     783               depending on the semantics of the parameter name. The presence or absence of a parameter might be significant to the processing
     784               of a media-type, depending on its definition within the media type registry.
     785            </p>
     786            <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.6">A parameter value that matches the <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a> production may be transmitted as either a token or within a quoted-string. The quoted and unquoted values are equivalent.
     787            </p>
     788            <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.7">Note that some older HTTP applications do not recognize media type parameters. When sending data to older HTTP applications,
     789               implementations <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> only use media type parameters when they are required by that type/subtype definition.
     790            </p>
     791            <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.8">Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA). The media type registration process is
     792               outlined in <a href="#RFC4288" id="rfc.xref.RFC4288.1"><cite title="Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures">[RFC4288]</cite></a>. Use of non-registered media types is discouraged.
     793            </p>
     794            <div id="canonicalization.and.text.defaults">
     795               <h3 id="rfc.section.3.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.3.1">3.3.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#canonicalization.and.text.defaults">Canonicalization and Text Defaults</a></h3>
     796               <p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.1">Internet media types are registered with a canonical form. An entity-body transferred via HTTP messages <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be represented in the appropriate canonical form prior to its transmission except for "text" types, as defined in the next
     797                  paragraph.
     798               </p>
     799               <p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.2">When in canonical form, media subtypes of the "text" type use CRLF as the text line break. HTTP relaxes this requirement and
     800                  allows the transport of text media with plain CR or LF alone representing a line break when it is done consistently for an
     801                  entire entity-body. HTTP applications <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> accept CRLF, bare CR, and bare LF as being representative of a line break in text media received via HTTP. In addition, if
     802                  the text is represented in a character set that does not use octets 13 and 10 for CR and LF respectively, as is the case for
     803                  some multi-byte character sets, HTTP allows the use of whatever octet sequences are defined by that character set to represent
     804                  the equivalent of CR and LF for line breaks. This flexibility regarding line breaks applies only to text media in the entity-body;
     805                  a bare CR or LF <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be substituted for CRLF within any of the HTTP control structures (such as header fields and multipart boundaries).
     806               </p>
     807               <p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.3">If an entity-body is encoded with a content-coding, the underlying data <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be in a form defined above prior to being encoded.
     808               </p>
     809               <p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.4">The "charset" parameter is used with some media types to define the character set (<a href="#character.sets" title="Character Sets">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>) of the data. When no explicit charset parameter is provided by the sender, media subtypes of the "text" type are defined
     810                  to have a default charset value of "ISO-8859-1" when received via HTTP. Data in character sets other than "ISO-8859-1" or
     811                  its subsets <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be labeled with an appropriate charset value. See <a href="#missing.charset" title="Missing Charset">Section&nbsp;3.1.1</a> for compatibility problems.
     812               </p>
     813            </div>
     814            <div id="multipart.types">
     815               <h3 id="rfc.section.3.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.3.2">3.3.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#multipart.types">Multipart Types</a></h3>
     816               <p id="rfc.section.3.3.2.p.1">MIME provides for a number of "multipart" types -- encapsulations of one or more entities within a single message-body. All
     817                  multipart types share a common syntax, as defined in <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2046#section-5.1.1">Section 5.1.1</a> of <a href="#RFC2046" id="rfc.xref.RFC2046.2"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types">[RFC2046]</cite></a>, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a boundary parameter as part of the media type value. The message body is itself a protocol element and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> therefore use only CRLF to represent line breaks between body-parts. Unlike in RFC 2046, the epilogue of any multipart message <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be empty; HTTP applications <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> transmit the epilogue (even if the original multipart contains an epilogue). These restrictions exist in order to preserve
     818                  the self-delimiting nature of a multipart message-body, wherein the "end" of the message-body is indicated by the ending multipart
     819                  boundary.
     820               </p>
     821               <p id="rfc.section.3.3.2.p.2">In general, HTTP treats a multipart message-body no differently than any other media type: strictly as payload. The one exception
     822                  is the "multipart/byteranges" type (<a href="p5-range.html#internet.media.type.multipart.byteranges" title="Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges">Appendix A</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>) when it appears in a 206 (Partial Content) response.  In all other cases, an HTTP user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> follow the same or similar behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type. The MIME header fields within
     823                  each body-part of a multipart message-body do not have any significance to HTTP beyond that defined by their MIME semantics.
     824               </p>
     825               <p id="rfc.section.3.3.2.p.3">In general, an HTTP user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> follow the same or similar behavior as a MIME user agent would upon receipt of a multipart type. If an application receives
     826                  an unrecognized multipart subtype, the application <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> treat it as being equivalent to "multipart/mixed".
     827               </p>
     828               <ul class="empty">
     829                  <li><b>Note:</b> The "multipart/form-data" type has been specifically defined for carrying form data suitable for processing via the POST request
     830                     method, as described in <a href="#RFC2388" id="rfc.xref.RFC2388.1"><cite title="Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data">[RFC2388]</cite></a>.
     831                  </li>
     832               </ul>
     833            </div>
     834         </div>
     835         <div id="quality.values">
     836            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.4"><a href="#rfc.section.3.4">3.4</a>&nbsp;<a href="#quality.values">Quality Values</a></h2>
     837            <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.1">HTTP content negotiation (<a href="#content.negotiation" title="Content Negotiation">Section&nbsp;5</a>) uses short "floating point" numbers to indicate the relative importance ("weight") of various negotiable parameters. A weight
     838               is normalized to a real number in the range 0 through 1, where 0 is the minimum and 1 the maximum value. If a parameter has
     839               a quality value of 0, then content with this parameter is `not acceptable' for the client. HTTP/1.1 applications <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> generate more than three digits after the decimal point. User configuration of these values <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> also be limited in this fashion.
     840            </p>
     841            <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.10"></span>  <a href="#quality.values" class="smpl">qvalue</a>         = ( "0" [ "." 0*3<a href="#notation" class="smpl">DIGIT</a> ] )
    811842                 / ( "1" [ "." 0*3("0") ] )
    812843</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.3">"Quality values" is a misnomer, since these values merely represent relative degradation in desired quality.</p>
    813       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.5"><a href="#rfc.section.3.5">3.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="language.tags" href="#language.tags">Language Tags</a></h2>
    814       <p id="rfc.section.3.5.p.1">A language tag identifies a natural language spoken, written, or otherwise conveyed by human beings for communication of information
    815          to other human beings. Computer languages are explicitly excluded. HTTP uses language tags within the Accept-Language and
    816          Content-Language fields.
    817       </p>
    818       <p id="rfc.section.3.5.p.2">The syntax and registry of HTTP language tags is the same as that defined by <a href="#RFC1766" id="rfc.xref.RFC1766.1"><cite title="Tags for the Identification of Languages">[RFC1766]</cite></a>. In summary, a language tag is composed of 1 or more parts: A primary language tag and a possibly empty series of subtags:
    819       </p>
    820       <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.11"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.12"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.13"></span>  <a href="#language.tags" class="smpl">language-tag</a>  = <a href="#language.tags" class="smpl">primary-tag</a> *( "-" <a href="#language.tags" class="smpl">subtag</a> )
     844         </div>
     845         <div id="language.tags">
     846            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.5"><a href="#rfc.section.3.5">3.5</a>&nbsp;<a href="#language.tags">Language Tags</a></h2>
     847            <p id="rfc.section.3.5.p.1">A language tag identifies a natural language spoken, written, or otherwise conveyed by human beings for communication of information
     848               to other human beings. Computer languages are explicitly excluded. HTTP uses language tags within the Accept-Language and
     849               Content-Language fields.
     850            </p>
     851            <p id="rfc.section.3.5.p.2">The syntax and registry of HTTP language tags is the same as that defined by <a href="#RFC1766" id="rfc.xref.RFC1766.1"><cite title="Tags for the Identification of Languages">[RFC1766]</cite></a>. In summary, a language tag is composed of 1 or more parts: A primary language tag and a possibly empty series of subtags:
     852            </p>
     853            <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.11"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.12"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.13"></span>  <a href="#language.tags" class="smpl">language-tag</a>  = <a href="#language.tags" class="smpl">primary-tag</a> *( "-" <a href="#language.tags" class="smpl">subtag</a> )
    821854  <a href="#language.tags" class="smpl">primary-tag</a>   = 1*8<a href="#notation" class="smpl">ALPHA</a>
    822855  <a href="#language.tags" class="smpl">subtag</a>        = 1*8<a href="#notation" class="smpl">ALPHA</a>
    823856</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.5.p.4">White space is not allowed within the tag and all tags are case-insensitive. The name space of language tags is administered
    824          by the IANA. Example tags include:
    825       </p>
    826       <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="text">    en, en-US, en-cockney, i-cherokee, x-pig-latin
     857               by the IANA. Example tags include:
     858            </p>
     859            <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="text">    en, en-US, en-cockney, i-cherokee, x-pig-latin
    827860</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.5.p.6">where any two-letter primary-tag is an ISO-639 language abbreviation and any two-letter initial subtag is an ISO-3166 country
    828          code. (The last three tags above are not registered tags; all but the last are examples of tags which could be registered
    829          in future.)
    830       </p>
    831       <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity" href="#entity">Entity</a></h1>
    832       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.1">Request and Response messages <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> transfer an entity if not otherwise restricted by the request method or response status code. An entity consists of entity-header
    833          fields and an entity-body, although some responses will only include the entity-headers.
    834       </p>
    835       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.2">In this section, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who receives
    836          the entity.
    837       </p>
    838       <h2 id="rfc.section.4.1"><a href="#rfc.section.4.1">4.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity.header.fields" href="#entity.header.fields">Entity Header Fields</a></h2>
    839       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.1">Entity-header fields define metainformation about the entity-body or, if no body is present, about the resource identified
    840          by the request.
    841       </p>
    842       <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.14"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.15"></span>  <a href="#entity.header.fields" class="smpl">entity-header</a>  = <a href="#header.content-encoding" class="smpl">Content-Encoding</a>         ; <a href="#header.content-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.content-encoding.2" title="Content-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.5</a>
     861               code. (The last three tags above are not registered tags; all but the last are examples of tags which could be registered
     862               in future.)
     863            </p>
     864         </div>
     865      </div>
     866      <div id="entity">
     867         <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#entity">Entity</a></h1>
     868         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.1">Request and Response messages <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> transfer an entity if not otherwise restricted by the request method or response status code. An entity consists of entity-header
     869            fields and an entity-body, although some responses will only include the entity-headers.
     870         </p>
     871         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.2">In this section, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who receives
     872            the entity.
     873         </p>
     874         <div id="entity.header.fields">
     875            <h2 id="rfc.section.4.1"><a href="#rfc.section.4.1">4.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#entity.header.fields">Entity Header Fields</a></h2>
     876            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.1">Entity-header fields define metainformation about the entity-body or, if no body is present, about the resource identified
     877               by the request.
     878            </p>
     879            <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.14"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.15"></span>  <a href="#entity.header.fields" class="smpl">entity-header</a>  = <a href="#header.content-encoding" class="smpl">Content-Encoding</a>         ; <a href="#header.content-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.content-encoding.2" title="Content-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.5</a>
    843880                 / <a href="#header.content-language" class="smpl">Content-Language</a>         ; <a href="#header.content-language" id="rfc.xref.header.content-language.1" title="Content-Language">Section&nbsp;6.6</a>
    844881                 / <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">Content-Length</a>           ; <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.13"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#header.content-length" title="Content-Length">Section 8.2</a>
     
    853890  <a href="#entity.header.fields" class="smpl">extension-header</a> = <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">message-header</a>
    854891</pre><p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.3">The extension-header mechanism allows additional entity-header fields to be defined without changing the protocol, but these
    855          fields cannot be assumed to be recognizable by the recipient. Unrecognized header fields <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be ignored by the recipient and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be forwarded by transparent proxies.
    856       </p>
    857       <h2 id="rfc.section.4.2"><a href="#rfc.section.4.2">4.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity.body" href="#entity.body">Entity Body</a></h2>
    858       <p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.1">The entity-body (if any) sent with an HTTP request or response is in a format and encoding defined by the entity-header fields.</p>
    859       <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.16"></span>  <a href="#entity.body" class="smpl">entity-body</a>    = *<a href="#notation" class="smpl">OCTET</a>
     892               fields cannot be assumed to be recognizable by the recipient. Unrecognized header fields <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be ignored by the recipient and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be forwarded by transparent proxies.
     893            </p>
     894         </div>
     895         <div id="entity.body">
     896            <h2 id="rfc.section.4.2"><a href="#rfc.section.4.2">4.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#entity.body">Entity Body</a></h2>
     897            <p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.1">The entity-body (if any) sent with an HTTP request or response is in a format and encoding defined by the entity-header fields.</p>
     898            <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.16"></span>  <a href="#entity.body" class="smpl">entity-body</a>    = *<a href="#notation" class="smpl">OCTET</a>
    860899</pre><p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.3">An entity-body is only present in a message when a message-body is present, as described in <a href="p1-messaging.html#message.body" title="Message Body">Section 4.3</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.14"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. The entity-body is obtained from the message-body by decoding any Transfer-Encoding that might have been applied to ensure
    861          safe and proper transfer of the message.
    862       </p>
    863       <h3 id="rfc.section.4.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.4.2.1">4.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="type" href="#type">Type</a></h3>
    864       <p id="rfc.section.4.2.1.p.1">When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that body is determined via the header fields Content-Type
    865          and Content-Encoding. These define a two-layer, ordered encoding model:
    866       </p>
    867       <div id="rfc.figure.u.16"></div><pre class="text">    entity-body := Content-Encoding( Content-Type( data ) )
     900               safe and proper transfer of the message.
     901            </p>
     902            <div id="type">
     903               <h3 id="rfc.section.4.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.4.2.1">4.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#type">Type</a></h3>
     904               <p id="rfc.section.4.2.1.p.1">When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that body is determined via the header fields Content-Type
     905                  and Content-Encoding. These define a two-layer, ordered encoding model:
     906               </p>
     907               <div id="rfc.figure.u.16"></div><pre class="text">    entity-body := Content-Encoding( Content-Type( data ) )
    868908</pre><p id="rfc.section.4.2.1.p.3">Content-Type specifies the media type of the underlying data. Content-Encoding may be used to indicate any additional content
    869          codings applied to the data, usually for the purpose of data compression, that are a property of the requested resource. There
    870          is no default encoding.
    871       </p>
    872       <p id="rfc.section.4.2.1.p.4">Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include a Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If and only if the media type is not given by a
    873          Content-Type field, the recipient <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the
    874          resource. If the media type remains unknown, the recipient <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> treat it as type "application/octet-stream".
    875       </p>
    876       <h3 id="rfc.section.4.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.4.2.2">4.2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity.length" href="#entity.length">Entity Length</a></h3>
    877       <p id="rfc.section.4.2.2.p.1">The entity-length of a message is the length of the message-body before any transfer-codings have been applied. <a href="p1-messaging.html#message.length" title="Message Length">Section 4.4</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.15"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a> defines how the transfer-length of a message-body is determined.
    878       </p>
    879       <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;<a id="content.negotiation" href="#content.negotiation">Content Negotiation</a></h1>
    880       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">Most HTTP responses include an entity which contains information for interpretation by a human user. Naturally, it is desirable
    881          to supply the user with the "best available" entity corresponding to the request. Unfortunately for servers and caches, not
    882          all users have the same preferences for what is "best," and not all user agents are equally capable of rendering all entity
    883          types. For that reason, HTTP has provisions for several mechanisms for "content negotiation" -- the process of selecting the
    884          best representation for a given response when there are multiple representations available.
    885       </p>
    886       <ul class="empty">
    887          <li> <b>Note:</b> This is not called "format negotiation" because the alternate representations may be of the same media type, but use different
    888             capabilities of that type, be in different languages, etc.
    889          </li>
    890       </ul>
    891       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.2">Any response containing an entity-body <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be subject to negotiation, including error responses.
    892       </p>
    893       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.3">There are two kinds of content negotiation which are possible in HTTP: server-driven and agent-driven negotiation. These two
    894          kinds of negotiation are orthogonal and thus may be used separately or in combination. One method of combination, referred
    895          to as transparent negotiation, occurs when a cache uses the agent-driven negotiation information provided by the origin server
    896          in order to provide server-driven negotiation for subsequent requests.
    897       </p>
    898       <h2 id="rfc.section.5.1"><a href="#rfc.section.5.1">5.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="server-driven.negotiation" href="#server-driven.negotiation">Server-driven Negotiation</a></h2>
    899       <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.1">If the selection of the best representation for a response is made by an algorithm located at the server, it is called server-driven
    900          negotiation. Selection is based on the available representations of the response (the dimensions over which it can vary; e.g.
    901          language, content-coding, etc.) and the contents of particular header fields in the request message or on other information
    902          pertaining to the request (such as the network address of the client).
    903       </p>
    904       <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.2">Server-driven negotiation is advantageous when the algorithm for selecting from among the available representations is difficult
    905          to describe to the user agent, or when the server desires to send its "best guess" to the client along with the first response
    906          (hoping to avoid the round-trip delay of a subsequent request if the "best guess" is good enough for the user). In order to
    907          improve the server's guess, the user agent <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include request header fields (Accept, Accept-Language, Accept-Encoding, etc.) which describe its preferences for such a response.
    908       </p>
    909       <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.3">Server-driven negotiation has disadvantages: </p>
    910       <ol>
    911          <li>It is impossible for the server to accurately determine what might be "best" for any given user, since that would require
    912             complete knowledge of both the capabilities of the user agent and the intended use for the response (e.g., does the user want
    913             to view it on screen or print it on paper?).
    914          </li>
    915          <li>Having the user agent describe its capabilities in every request can be both very inefficient (given that only a small percentage
    916             of responses have multiple representations) and a potential violation of the user's privacy.
    917          </li>
    918          <li>It complicates the implementation of an origin server and the algorithms for generating responses to a request.</li>
    919          <li>It may limit a public cache's ability to use the same response for multiple user's requests.</li>
    920       </ol>
    921       <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.4">HTTP/1.1 includes the following request-header fields for enabling server-driven negotiation through description of user agent
    922          capabilities and user preferences: Accept (<a href="#header.accept" id="rfc.xref.header.accept.2" title="Accept">Section&nbsp;6.1</a>), Accept-Charset (<a href="#header.accept-charset" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-charset.1" title="Accept-Charset">Section&nbsp;6.2</a>), Accept-Encoding (<a href="#header.accept-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-encoding.2" title="Accept-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.3</a>), Accept-Language (<a href="#header.accept-language" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-language.1" title="Accept-Language">Section&nbsp;6.4</a>), and User-Agent (<a href="p2-semantics.html#header.user-agent" title="User-Agent">Section 10.9</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>). However, an origin server is not limited to these dimensions and <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> vary the response based on any aspect of the request, including information outside the request-header fields or within extension
    923          header fields not defined by this specification.
    924       </p>
    925       <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.5">The Vary header field (<a href="p6-cache.html#header.vary" title="Vary">Section 16.5</a> of <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) can be used to express the parameters the server uses to select a representation that is subject to server-driven negotiation.
    926       </p>
    927       <h2 id="rfc.section.5.2"><a href="#rfc.section.5.2">5.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="agent-driven.negotiation" href="#agent-driven.negotiation">Agent-driven Negotiation</a></h2>
    928       <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.1">With agent-driven negotiation, selection of the best representation for a response is performed by the user agent after receiving
    929          an initial response from the origin server. Selection is based on a list of the available representations of the response
    930          included within the header fields or entity-body of the initial response, with each representation identified by its own URI.
    931          Selection from among the representations may be performed automatically (if the user agent is capable of doing so) or manually
    932          by the user selecting from a generated (possibly hypertext) menu.
    933       </p>
    934       <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.2">Agent-driven negotiation is advantageous when the response would vary over commonly-used dimensions (such as type, language,
    935          or encoding), when the origin server is unable to determine a user agent's capabilities from examining the request, and generally
    936          when public caches are used to distribute server load and reduce network usage.
    937       </p>
    938       <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.3">Agent-driven negotiation suffers from the disadvantage of needing a second request to obtain the best alternate representation.
    939          This second request is only efficient when caching is used. In addition, this specification does not define any mechanism
    940          for supporting automatic selection, though it also does not prevent any such mechanism from being developed as an extension
    941          and used within HTTP/1.1.
    942       </p>
    943       <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.4">HTTP/1.1 defines the 300 (Multiple Choices) and 406 (Not Acceptable) status codes for enabling agent-driven negotiation when
    944          the server is unwilling or unable to provide a varying response using server-driven negotiation.
    945       </p>
    946       <h2 id="rfc.section.5.3"><a href="#rfc.section.5.3">5.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="transparent.negotiation" href="#transparent.negotiation">Transparent Negotiation</a></h2>
    947       <p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.1">Transparent negotiation is a combination of both server-driven and agent-driven negotiation. When a cache is supplied with
    948          a form of the list of available representations of the response (as in agent-driven negotiation) and the dimensions of variance
    949          are completely understood by the cache, then the cache becomes capable of performing server-driven negotiation on behalf of
    950          the origin server for subsequent requests on that resource.
    951       </p>
    952       <p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.2">Transparent negotiation has the advantage of distributing the negotiation work that would otherwise be required of the origin
    953          server and also removing the second request delay of agent-driven negotiation when the cache is able to correctly guess the
    954          right response.
    955       </p>
    956       <p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.3">This specification does not define any mechanism for transparent negotiation, though it also does not prevent any such mechanism
    957          from being developed as an extension that could be used within HTTP/1.1.
    958       </p>
    959       <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.fields" href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a></h1>
    960       <p id="rfc.section.6.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields related to the payload of messages.</p>
    961       <p id="rfc.section.6.p.2">For entity-header fields, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who
    962          receives the entity.
    963       </p>
    964       <div id="rfc.iref.a.1"></div>
    965       <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div>
    966       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.1"><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.accept" href="#header.accept">Accept</a></h2>
    967       <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.1">The request-header field "Accept" can be used to specify certain media types which are acceptable for the response. Accept
    968          headers can be used to indicate that the request is specifically limited to a small set of desired types, as in the case of
    969          a request for an in-line image.
    970       </p>
    971       <div id="rfc.figure.u.17"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.17"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.18"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.19"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.20"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.21"></span>  <a href="#header.accept" class="smpl">Accept</a>   = "Accept" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.accept" class="smpl">Accept-v</a>
     909                  codings applied to the data, usually for the purpose of data compression, that are a property of the requested resource. There
     910                  is no default encoding.
     911               </p>
     912               <p id="rfc.section.4.2.1.p.4">Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> include a Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If and only if the media type is not given by a
     913                  Content-Type field, the recipient <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the
     914                  resource. If the media type remains unknown, the recipient <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> treat it as type "application/octet-stream".
     915               </p>
     916            </div>
     917            <div id="entity.length">
     918               <h3 id="rfc.section.4.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.4.2.2">4.2.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#entity.length">Entity Length</a></h3>
     919               <p id="rfc.section.4.2.2.p.1">The entity-length of a message is the length of the message-body before any transfer-codings have been applied. <a href="p1-messaging.html#message.length" title="Message Length">Section 4.4</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.15"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a> defines how the transfer-length of a message-body is determined.
     920               </p>
     921            </div>
     922         </div>
     923      </div>
     924      <div id="content.negotiation">
     925         <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#content.negotiation">Content Negotiation</a></h1>
     926         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">Most HTTP responses include an entity which contains information for interpretation by a human user. Naturally, it is desirable
     927            to supply the user with the "best available" entity corresponding to the request. Unfortunately for servers and caches, not
     928            all users have the same preferences for what is "best," and not all user agents are equally capable of rendering all entity
     929            types. For that reason, HTTP has provisions for several mechanisms for "content negotiation" -- the process of selecting the
     930            best representation for a given response when there are multiple representations available.
     931         </p>
     932         <ul class="empty">
     933            <li><b>Note:</b> This is not called "format negotiation" because the alternate representations may be of the same media type, but use different
     934               capabilities of that type, be in different languages, etc.
     935            </li>
     936         </ul>
     937         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.2">Any response containing an entity-body <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be subject to negotiation, including error responses.
     938         </p>
     939         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.3">There are two kinds of content negotiation which are possible in HTTP: server-driven and agent-driven negotiation. These two
     940            kinds of negotiation are orthogonal and thus may be used separately or in combination. One method of combination, referred
     941            to as transparent negotiation, occurs when a cache uses the agent-driven negotiation information provided by the origin server
     942            in order to provide server-driven negotiation for subsequent requests.
     943         </p>
     944         <div id="server-driven.negotiation">
     945            <h2 id="rfc.section.5.1"><a href="#rfc.section.5.1">5.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#server-driven.negotiation">Server-driven Negotiation</a></h2>
     946            <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.1">If the selection of the best representation for a response is made by an algorithm located at the server, it is called server-driven
     947               negotiation. Selection is based on the available representations of the response (the dimensions over which it can vary; e.g.
     948               language, content-coding, etc.) and the contents of particular header fields in the request message or on other information
     949               pertaining to the request (such as the network address of the client).
     950            </p>
     951            <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.2">Server-driven negotiation is advantageous when the algorithm for selecting from among the available representations is difficult
     952               to describe to the user agent, or when the server desires to send its "best guess" to the client along with the first response
     953               (hoping to avoid the round-trip delay of a subsequent request if the "best guess" is good enough for the user). In order to
     954               improve the server's guess, the user agent <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include request header fields (Accept, Accept-Language, Accept-Encoding, etc.) which describe its preferences for such a response.
     955            </p>
     956            <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.3">Server-driven negotiation has disadvantages: </p>
     957            <ol>
     958               <li>It is impossible for the server to accurately determine what might be "best" for any given user, since that would require
     959                  complete knowledge of both the capabilities of the user agent and the intended use for the response (e.g., does the user want
     960                  to view it on screen or print it on paper?).
     961               </li>
     962               <li>Having the user agent describe its capabilities in every request can be both very inefficient (given that only a small percentage
     963                  of responses have multiple representations) and a potential violation of the user's privacy.
     964               </li>
     965               <li>It complicates the implementation of an origin server and the algorithms for generating responses to a request.</li>
     966               <li>It may limit a public cache's ability to use the same response for multiple user's requests.</li>
     967            </ol>
     968            <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.4">HTTP/1.1 includes the following request-header fields for enabling server-driven negotiation through description of user agent
     969               capabilities and user preferences: Accept (<a href="#header.accept" id="rfc.xref.header.accept.2" title="Accept">Section&nbsp;6.1</a>), Accept-Charset (<a href="#header.accept-charset" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-charset.1" title="Accept-Charset">Section&nbsp;6.2</a>), Accept-Encoding (<a href="#header.accept-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-encoding.2" title="Accept-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.3</a>), Accept-Language (<a href="#header.accept-language" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-language.1" title="Accept-Language">Section&nbsp;6.4</a>), and User-Agent (<a href="p2-semantics.html#header.user-agent" title="User-Agent">Section 10.9</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics">[Part2]</cite></a>). However, an origin server is not limited to these dimensions and <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> vary the response based on any aspect of the request, including information outside the request-header fields or within extension
     970               header fields not defined by this specification.
     971            </p>
     972            <p id="rfc.section.5.1.p.5">The Vary header field (<a href="p6-cache.html#header.vary" title="Vary">Section 16.5</a> of <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) can be used to express the parameters the server uses to select a representation that is subject to server-driven negotiation.
     973            </p>
     974         </div>
     975         <div id="agent-driven.negotiation">
     976            <h2 id="rfc.section.5.2"><a href="#rfc.section.5.2">5.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#agent-driven.negotiation">Agent-driven Negotiation</a></h2>
     977            <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.1">With agent-driven negotiation, selection of the best representation for a response is performed by the user agent after receiving
     978               an initial response from the origin server. Selection is based on a list of the available representations of the response
     979               included within the header fields or entity-body of the initial response, with each representation identified by its own URI.
     980               Selection from among the representations may be performed automatically (if the user agent is capable of doing so) or manually
     981               by the user selecting from a generated (possibly hypertext) menu.
     982            </p>
     983            <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.2">Agent-driven negotiation is advantageous when the response would vary over commonly-used dimensions (such as type, language,
     984               or encoding), when the origin server is unable to determine a user agent's capabilities from examining the request, and generally
     985               when public caches are used to distribute server load and reduce network usage.
     986            </p>
     987            <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.3">Agent-driven negotiation suffers from the disadvantage of needing a second request to obtain the best alternate representation.
     988               This second request is only efficient when caching is used. In addition, this specification does not define any mechanism
     989               for supporting automatic selection, though it also does not prevent any such mechanism from being developed as an extension
     990               and used within HTTP/1.1.
     991            </p>
     992            <p id="rfc.section.5.2.p.4">HTTP/1.1 defines the 300 (Multiple Choices) and 406 (Not Acceptable) status codes for enabling agent-driven negotiation when
     993               the server is unwilling or unable to provide a varying response using server-driven negotiation.
     994            </p>
     995         </div>
     996         <div id="transparent.negotiation">
     997            <h2 id="rfc.section.5.3"><a href="#rfc.section.5.3">5.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#transparent.negotiation">Transparent Negotiation</a></h2>
     998            <p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.1">Transparent negotiation is a combination of both server-driven and agent-driven negotiation. When a cache is supplied with
     999               a form of the list of available representations of the response (as in agent-driven negotiation) and the dimensions of variance
     1000               are completely understood by the cache, then the cache becomes capable of performing server-driven negotiation on behalf of
     1001               the origin server for subsequent requests on that resource.
     1002            </p>
     1003            <p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.2">Transparent negotiation has the advantage of distributing the negotiation work that would otherwise be required of the origin
     1004               server and also removing the second request delay of agent-driven negotiation when the cache is able to correctly guess the
     1005               right response.
     1006            </p>
     1007            <p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.3">This specification does not define any mechanism for transparent negotiation, though it also does not prevent any such mechanism
     1008               from being developed as an extension that could be used within HTTP/1.1.
     1009            </p>
     1010         </div>
     1011      </div>
     1012      <div id="header.fields">
     1013         <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a></h1>
     1014         <p id="rfc.section.6.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields related to the payload of messages.</p>
     1015         <p id="rfc.section.6.p.2">For entity-header fields, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who
     1016            receives the entity.
     1017         </p>
     1018         <div id="header.accept">
     1019            <div id="rfc.iref.a.1"></div>
     1020            <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div>
     1021            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.1"><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept">Accept</a></h2>
     1022            <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.1">The request-header field "Accept" can be used to specify certain media types which are acceptable for the response. Accept
     1023               headers can be used to indicate that the request is specifically limited to a small set of desired types, as in the case of
     1024               a request for an in-line image.
     1025            </p>
     1026            <div id="rfc.figure.u.17"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.17"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.18"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.19"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.20"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.21"></span>  <a href="#header.accept" class="smpl">Accept</a>   = "Accept" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.accept" class="smpl">Accept-v</a>
    9721027  <a href="#header.accept" class="smpl">Accept-v</a> = #( <a href="#header.accept" class="smpl">media-range</a> [ <a href="#header.accept" class="smpl">accept-params</a> ] )
    9731028 
     
    9801035                   [ "=" ( <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a> / <a href="#notation" class="smpl">quoted-string</a> ) ]
    9811036</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.3">The asterisk "*" character is used to group media types into ranges, with "*/*" indicating all media types and "type/*" indicating
    982          all subtypes of that type. The media-range <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include media type parameters that are applicable to that range.
    983       </p>
    984       <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.4">Each media-range <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be followed by one or more accept-params, beginning with the "q" parameter for indicating a relative quality factor. The first
    985          "q" parameter (if any) separates the media-range parameter(s) from the accept-params. Quality factors allow the user or user
    986          agent to indicate the relative degree of preference for that media-range, using the qvalue scale from 0 to 1 (<a href="#quality.values" title="Quality Values">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>). The default value is q=1.
    987       </p>
    988       <ul class="empty">
    989          <li> <b>Note:</b> Use of the "q" parameter name to separate media type parameters from Accept extension parameters is due to historical practice.
    990             Although this prevents any media type parameter named "q" from being used with a media range, such an event is believed to
    991             be unlikely given the lack of any "q" parameters in the IANA media type registry and the rare usage of any media type parameters
    992             in Accept. Future media types are discouraged from registering any parameter named "q".
    993          </li>
    994       </ul>
    995       <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.5">The example</p>
    996       <div id="rfc.figure.u.18"></div><pre class="text">  Accept: audio/*; q=0.2, audio/basic
    997 </pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.7"> <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be interpreted as "I prefer audio/basic, but send me any audio type if it is the best available after an 80% mark-down in
    998          quality."
    999       </p>
    1000       <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.8">If no Accept header field is present, then it is assumed that the client accepts all media types. If an Accept header field
    1001          is present, and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable according to the combined Accept field value, then
    1002          the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send a 406 (Not Acceptable) response.
    1003       </p>
    1004       <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.9">A more elaborate example is</p>
    1005       <div id="rfc.figure.u.19"></div><pre class="text">  Accept: text/plain; q=0.5, text/html,
     1037               all subtypes of that type. The media-range <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include media type parameters that are applicable to that range.
     1038            </p>
     1039            <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.4">Each media-range <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be followed by one or more accept-params, beginning with the "q" parameter for indicating a relative quality factor. The first
     1040               "q" parameter (if any) separates the media-range parameter(s) from the accept-params. Quality factors allow the user or user
     1041               agent to indicate the relative degree of preference for that media-range, using the qvalue scale from 0 to 1 (<a href="#quality.values" title="Quality Values">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>). The default value is q=1.
     1042            </p>
     1043            <ul class="empty">
     1044               <li><b>Note:</b> Use of the "q" parameter name to separate media type parameters from Accept extension parameters is due to historical practice.
     1045                  Although this prevents any media type parameter named "q" from being used with a media range, such an event is believed to
     1046                  be unlikely given the lack of any "q" parameters in the IANA media type registry and the rare usage of any media type parameters
     1047                  in Accept. Future media types are discouraged from registering any parameter named "q".
     1048               </li>
     1049            </ul>
     1050            <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.5">The example</p>
     1051            <div id="rfc.figure.u.18"></div><pre class="text">  Accept: audio/*; q=0.2, audio/basic
     1052</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.7"><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be interpreted as "I prefer audio/basic, but send me any audio type if it is the best available after an 80% mark-down in
     1053               quality."
     1054            </p>
     1055            <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.8">If no Accept header field is present, then it is assumed that the client accepts all media types. If an Accept header field
     1056               is present, and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable according to the combined Accept field value, then
     1057               the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send a 406 (Not Acceptable) response.
     1058            </p>
     1059            <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.9">A more elaborate example is</p>
     1060            <div id="rfc.figure.u.19"></div><pre class="text">  Accept: text/plain; q=0.5, text/html,
    10061061          text/x-dvi; q=0.8, text/x-c
    10071062</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.11">Verbally, this would be interpreted as "text/html and text/x-c are the preferred media types, but if they do not exist, then
    1008          send the text/x-dvi entity, and if that does not exist, send the text/plain entity."
    1009       </p>
    1010       <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.12">Media ranges can be overridden by more specific media ranges or specific media types. If more than one media range applies
    1011          to a given type, the most specific reference has precedence. For example,
    1012       </p>
    1013       <div id="rfc.figure.u.20"></div><pre class="text">  Accept: text/*, text/html, text/html;level=1, */*
     1063               send the text/x-dvi entity, and if that does not exist, send the text/plain entity."
     1064            </p>
     1065            <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.12">Media ranges can be overridden by more specific media ranges or specific media types. If more than one media range applies
     1066               to a given type, the most specific reference has precedence. For example,
     1067            </p>
     1068            <div id="rfc.figure.u.20"></div><pre class="text">  Accept: text/*, text/html, text/html;level=1, */*
    10141069</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.14">have the following precedence:</p>
    1015       <div id="rfc.figure.u.21"></div><pre class="text">    1) text/html;level=1
     1070            <div id="rfc.figure.u.21"></div><pre class="text">    1) text/html;level=1
    10161071    2) text/html
    10171072    3) text/*
    10181073    4) */*
    10191074</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.16">The media type quality factor associated with a given type is determined by finding the media range with the highest precedence
    1020          which matches that type. For example,
    1021       </p>
    1022       <div id="rfc.figure.u.22"></div><pre class="text">  Accept: text/*;q=0.3, text/html;q=0.7, text/html;level=1,
     1075               which matches that type. For example,
     1076            </p>
     1077            <div id="rfc.figure.u.22"></div><pre class="text">  Accept: text/*;q=0.3, text/html;q=0.7, text/html;level=1,
    10231078          text/html;level=2;q=0.4, */*;q=0.5
    10241079</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.18">would cause the following values to be associated:</p>
    1025       <div id="rfc.figure.u.23"></div><pre class="text">    text/html;level=1         = 1
     1080            <div id="rfc.figure.u.23"></div><pre class="text">    text/html;level=1         = 1
    10261081    text/html                 = 0.7
    10271082    text/plain                = 0.3
     
    10291084    text/html;level=2         = 0.4
    10301085    text/html;level=3         = 0.7
    1031 </pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.20"> <b>Note:</b> A user agent might be provided with a default set of quality values for certain media ranges. However, unless the user agent
    1032          is a closed system which cannot interact with other rendering agents, this default set ought to be configurable by the user.
    1033       </p>
    1034       <div id="rfc.iref.a.2"></div>
    1035       <div id="rfc.iref.h.2"></div>
    1036       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.2"><a href="#rfc.section.6.2">6.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.accept-charset" href="#header.accept-charset">Accept-Charset</a></h2>
    1037       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.1">The request-header field "Accept-Charset" can be used to indicate what character sets are acceptable for the response. This
    1038          field allows clients capable of understanding more comprehensive or special-purpose character sets to signal that capability
    1039          to a server which is capable of representing documents in those character sets.
    1040       </p>
    1041       <div id="rfc.figure.u.24"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.22"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.23"></span>  <a href="#header.accept-charset" class="smpl">Accept-Charset</a>   = "Accept-Charset" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>
     1086</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.20"><b>Note:</b> A user agent might be provided with a default set of quality values for certain media ranges. However, unless the user agent
     1087               is a closed system which cannot interact with other rendering agents, this default set ought to be configurable by the user.
     1088            </p>
     1089         </div>
     1090         <div id="header.accept-charset">
     1091            <div id="rfc.iref.a.2"></div>
     1092            <div id="rfc.iref.h.2"></div>
     1093            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.2"><a href="#rfc.section.6.2">6.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept-charset">Accept-Charset</a></h2>
     1094            <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.1">The request-header field "Accept-Charset" can be used to indicate what character sets are acceptable for the response. This
     1095               field allows clients capable of understanding more comprehensive or special-purpose character sets to signal that capability
     1096               to a server which is capable of representing documents in those character sets.
     1097            </p>
     1098            <div id="rfc.figure.u.24"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.22"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.23"></span>  <a href="#header.accept-charset" class="smpl">Accept-Charset</a>   = "Accept-Charset" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>
    10421099          <a href="#header.accept-charset" class="smpl">Accept-Charset-v</a>
    10431100  <a href="#header.accept-charset" class="smpl">Accept-Charset-v</a> = 1#( ( <a href="#rule.charset" class="smpl">charset</a> / "*" )
    10441101                         [ <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> ";" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> "q=" <a href="#quality.values" class="smpl">qvalue</a> ] )
    10451102</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.3">Character set values are described in <a href="#character.sets" title="Character Sets">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>. Each charset <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be given an associated quality value which represents the user's preference for that charset. The default value is q=1. An
    1046          example is
    1047       </p>
    1048       <div id="rfc.figure.u.25"></div><pre class="text">  Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, unicode-1-1;q=0.8
     1103               example is
     1104            </p>
     1105            <div id="rfc.figure.u.25"></div><pre class="text">  Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, unicode-1-1;q=0.8
    10491106</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.5">The special value "*", if present in the Accept-Charset field, matches every character set (including ISO-8859-1) which is
    1050          not mentioned elsewhere in the Accept-Charset field. If no "*" is present in an Accept-Charset field, then all character sets
    1051          not explicitly mentioned get a quality value of 0, except for ISO-8859-1, which gets a quality value of 1 if not explicitly
    1052          mentioned.
    1053       </p>
    1054       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.6">If no Accept-Charset header is present, the default is that any character set is acceptable. If an Accept-Charset header is
    1055          present, and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable according to the Accept-Charset header, then the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an error response with the 406 (Not Acceptable) status code, though the sending of an unacceptable response is also allowed.
    1056       </p>
    1057       <div id="rfc.iref.a.3"></div>
    1058       <div id="rfc.iref.h.3"></div>
    1059       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.3"><a href="#rfc.section.6.3">6.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.accept-encoding" href="#header.accept-encoding">Accept-Encoding</a></h2>
    1060       <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.1">The request-header field "Accept-Encoding" is similar to Accept, but restricts the content-codings (<a href="#content.codings" title="Content Codings">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>) that are acceptable in the response.
    1061       </p>
    1062       <div id="rfc.figure.u.26"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.24"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.25"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.26"></span>  <a href="#header.accept-encoding" class="smpl">Accept-Encoding</a>    = "Accept-Encoding" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>
     1107               not mentioned elsewhere in the Accept-Charset field. If no "*" is present in an Accept-Charset field, then all character sets
     1108               not explicitly mentioned get a quality value of 0, except for ISO-8859-1, which gets a quality value of 1 if not explicitly
     1109               mentioned.
     1110            </p>
     1111            <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.6">If no Accept-Charset header is present, the default is that any character set is acceptable. If an Accept-Charset header is
     1112               present, and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable according to the Accept-Charset header, then the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an error response with the 406 (Not Acceptable) status code, though the sending of an unacceptable response is also allowed.
     1113            </p>
     1114         </div>
     1115         <div id="header.accept-encoding">
     1116            <div id="rfc.iref.a.3"></div>
     1117            <div id="rfc.iref.h.3"></div>
     1118            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.3"><a href="#rfc.section.6.3">6.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept-encoding">Accept-Encoding</a></h2>
     1119            <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.1">The request-header field "Accept-Encoding" is similar to Accept, but restricts the content-codings (<a href="#content.codings" title="Content Codings">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>) that are acceptable in the response.
     1120            </p>
     1121            <div id="rfc.figure.u.26"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.24"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.25"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.26"></span>  <a href="#header.accept-encoding" class="smpl">Accept-Encoding</a>    = "Accept-Encoding" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>
    10631122                     <a href="#header.accept-encoding" class="smpl">Accept-Encoding-v</a>
    10641123  <a href="#header.accept-encoding" class="smpl">Accept-Encoding-v</a>  =
     
    10661125  <a href="#header.accept-encoding" class="smpl">codings</a>            = ( <a href="#content.codings" class="smpl">content-coding</a> / "*" )
    10671126</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.3">Each codings value <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be given an associated quality value which represents the preference for that encoding. The default value is q=1.
    1068       </p>
    1069       <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.4">Examples of its use are:</p>
    1070       <div id="rfc.figure.u.27"></div><pre class="text">  Accept-Encoding: compress, gzip
     1127            </p>
     1128            <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.4">Examples of its use are:</p>
     1129            <div id="rfc.figure.u.27"></div><pre class="text">  Accept-Encoding: compress, gzip
    10711130  Accept-Encoding:
    10721131  Accept-Encoding: *
     
    10741133  Accept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0
    10751134</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.6">A server tests whether a content-coding is acceptable, according to an Accept-Encoding field, using these rules: </p>
    1076       <ol>
    1077          <li>If the content-coding is one of the content-codings listed in the Accept-Encoding field, then it is acceptable, unless it
    1078             is accompanied by a qvalue of 0. (As defined in <a href="#quality.values" title="Quality Values">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>, a qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable.")
    1079          </li>
    1080          <li>The special "*" symbol in an Accept-Encoding field matches any available content-coding not explicitly listed in the header
    1081             field.
    1082          </li>
    1083          <li>If multiple content-codings are acceptable, then the acceptable content-coding with the highest non-zero qvalue is preferred.</li>
    1084          <li>The "identity" content-coding is always acceptable, unless specifically refused because the Accept-Encoding field includes
    1085             "identity;q=0", or because the field includes "*;q=0" and does not explicitly include the "identity" content-coding. If the
    1086             Accept-Encoding field-value is empty, then only the "identity" encoding is acceptable.
    1087          </li>
    1088       </ol>
    1089       <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.7">If an Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable according
    1090          to the Accept-Encoding header, then the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an error response with the 406 (Not Acceptable) status code.
    1091       </p>
    1092       <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.8">If no Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> assume that the client will accept any content coding. In this case, if "identity" is one of the available content-codings,
    1093          then the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use the "identity" content-coding, unless it has additional information that a different content-coding is meaningful to the
    1094          client.
    1095       </p>
    1096       <ul class="empty">
    1097          <li> <b>Note:</b> If the request does not include an Accept-Encoding field, and if the "identity" content-coding is unavailable, then content-codings
    1098             commonly understood by HTTP/1.0 clients (i.e., "gzip" and "compress") are preferred; some older clients improperly display
    1099             messages sent with other content-codings. The server might also make this decision based on information about the particular
    1100             user-agent or client.
    1101          </li>
    1102          <li> <b>Note:</b> Most HTTP/1.0 applications do not recognize or obey qvalues associated with content-codings. This means that qvalues will
    1103             not work and are not permitted with x-gzip or x-compress.
    1104          </li>
    1105       </ul>
    1106       <div id="rfc.iref.a.4"></div>
    1107       <div id="rfc.iref.h.4"></div>
    1108       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.4"><a href="#rfc.section.6.4">6.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.accept-language" href="#header.accept-language">Accept-Language</a></h2>
    1109       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.1">The request-header field "Accept-Language" is similar to Accept, but restricts the set of natural languages that are preferred
    1110          as a response to the request. Language tags are defined in <a href="#language.tags" title="Language Tags">Section&nbsp;3.5</a>.
    1111       </p>
    1112       <div id="rfc.figure.u.28"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.27"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.28"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.29"></span>  <a href="#header.accept-language" class="smpl">Accept-Language</a>   = "Accept-Language" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>
     1135            <ol>
     1136               <li>If the content-coding is one of the content-codings listed in the Accept-Encoding field, then it is acceptable, unless it
     1137                  is accompanied by a qvalue of 0. (As defined in <a href="#quality.values" title="Quality Values">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>, a qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable.")
     1138               </li>
     1139               <li>The special "*" symbol in an Accept-Encoding field matches any available content-coding not explicitly listed in the header
     1140                  field.
     1141               </li>
     1142               <li>If multiple content-codings are acceptable, then the acceptable content-coding with the highest non-zero qvalue is preferred.</li>
     1143               <li>The "identity" content-coding is always acceptable, unless specifically refused because the Accept-Encoding field includes
     1144                  "identity;q=0", or because the field includes "*;q=0" and does not explicitly include the "identity" content-coding. If the
     1145                  Accept-Encoding field-value is empty, then only the "identity" encoding is acceptable.
     1146               </li>
     1147            </ol>
     1148            <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.7">If an Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable according
     1149               to the Accept-Encoding header, then the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an error response with the 406 (Not Acceptable) status code.
     1150            </p>
     1151            <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.8">If no Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> assume that the client will accept any content coding. In this case, if "identity" is one of the available content-codings,
     1152               then the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use the "identity" content-coding, unless it has additional information that a different content-coding is meaningful to the
     1153               client.
     1154            </p>
     1155            <ul class="empty">
     1156               <li><b>Note:</b> If the request does not include an Accept-Encoding field, and if the "identity" content-coding is unavailable, then content-codings
     1157                  commonly understood by HTTP/1.0 clients (i.e., "gzip" and "compress") are preferred; some older clients improperly display
     1158                  messages sent with other content-codings. The server might also make this decision based on information about the particular
     1159                  user-agent or client.
     1160               </li>
     1161               <li><b>Note:</b> Most HTTP/1.0 applications do not recognize or obey qvalues associated with content-codings. This means that qvalues will
     1162                  not work and are not permitted with x-gzip or x-compress.
     1163               </li>
     1164            </ul>
     1165         </div>
     1166         <div id="header.accept-language">
     1167            <div id="rfc.iref.a.4"></div>
     1168            <div id="rfc.iref.h.4"></div>
     1169            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.4"><a href="#rfc.section.6.4">6.4</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.accept-language">Accept-Language</a></h2>
     1170            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.1">The request-header field "Accept-Language" is similar to Accept, but restricts the set of natural languages that are preferred
     1171               as a response to the request. Language tags are defined in <a href="#language.tags" title="Language Tags">Section&nbsp;3.5</a>.
     1172            </p>
     1173            <div id="rfc.figure.u.28"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.27"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.28"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.29"></span>  <a href="#header.accept-language" class="smpl">Accept-Language</a>   = "Accept-Language" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>
    11131174                    <a href="#header.accept-language" class="smpl">Accept-Language-v</a>
    11141175  <a href="#header.accept-language" class="smpl">Accept-Language-v</a> =
    11151176                    1#( <a href="#header.accept-language" class="smpl">language-range</a> [ <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> ";" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> "q=" <a href="#quality.values" class="smpl">qvalue</a> ] )
    11161177  <a href="#header.accept-language" class="smpl">language-range</a>    =
    1117             &lt;language-range, defined in <a href="#RFC4647" id="rfc.xref.RFC4647.1"><cite title="Matching of Language Tags">[RFC4647]</cite></a>, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-2.1">Section 2.1</a>&gt;
     1178            &lt;language-range, defined in <a href="#RFC4647" id="rfc.xref.RFC4647.1"><cite title="Matching of Language Tags">[RFC4647]</cite></a>, <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-2.1">Section 2.1</a>&gt;
    11181179</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.3">Each language-range can be given an associated quality value which represents an estimate of the user's preference for the
    1119          languages specified by that range. The quality value defaults to "q=1". For example,
    1120       </p>
    1121       <div id="rfc.figure.u.29"></div><pre class="text">  Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7
     1180               languages specified by that range. The quality value defaults to "q=1". For example,
     1181            </p>
     1182            <div id="rfc.figure.u.29"></div><pre class="text">  Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7
    11221183</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.5">would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and other types of English."</p>
    1123       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.6">For matching, the "Basic Filtering" matching scheme, defined in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3.3.1">Section 3.3.1</a> of <a href="#RFC4647" id="rfc.xref.RFC4647.2"><cite title="Matching of Language Tags">[RFC4647]</cite></a>, is used:
    1124       </p>
    1125       <blockquote id="rfc.section.6.4.p.7" cite="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3.3.1">
    1126          <p>A language range matches a particular language tag if, in a case-insensitive comparison, it exactly equals the tag, or if
    1127             it exactly equals a prefix of the tag such that the first character following the prefix is "-".
    1128          </p>
    1129       </blockquote>
    1130       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.8">The special range "*", if present in the Accept-Language field, matches every tag not matched by any other range present in
    1131          the Accept-Language field.
    1132       </p>
    1133       <ul class="empty">
    1134          <li> <b>Note:</b> This use of a prefix matching rule does not imply that language tags are assigned to languages in such a way that it is always
    1135             true that if a user understands a language with a certain tag, then this user will also understand all languages with tags
    1136             for which this tag is a prefix. The prefix rule simply allows the use of prefix tags if this is the case.
    1137          </li>
    1138       </ul>
    1139       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.9">The language quality factor assigned to a language-tag by the Accept-Language field is the quality value of the longest language-range
    1140          in the field that matches the language-tag. If no language-range in the field matches the tag, the language quality factor
    1141          assigned is 0. If no Accept-Language header is present in the request, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> assume that all languages are equally acceptable. If an Accept-Language header is present, then all languages which are assigned
    1142          a quality factor greater than 0 are acceptable.
    1143       </p>
    1144       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.10">It might be contrary to the privacy expectations of the user to send an Accept-Language header with the complete linguistic
    1145          preferences of the user in every request. For a discussion of this issue, see <a href="#privacy.issues.connected.to.accept.headers" title="Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers">Section&nbsp;8.1</a>.
    1146       </p>
    1147       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.11">As intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, it is recommended that client applications make the choice
    1148          of linguistic preference available to the user. If the choice is not made available, then the Accept-Language header field <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be given in the request.
    1149       </p>
    1150       <ul class="empty">
    1151          <li> <b>Note:</b> When making the choice of linguistic preference available to the user, we remind implementors of the fact that users are not
    1152             familiar with the details of language matching as described above, and should provide appropriate guidance. As an example,
    1153             users might assume that on selecting "en-gb", they will be served any kind of English document if British English is not available.
    1154             A user agent might suggest in such a case to add "en" to get the best matching behavior.
    1155          </li>
    1156       </ul>
    1157       <div id="rfc.iref.c.2"></div>
    1158       <div id="rfc.iref.h.5"></div>
    1159       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.5"><a href="#rfc.section.6.5">6.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.content-encoding" href="#header.content-encoding">Content-Encoding</a></h2>
    1160       <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.1">The entity-header field "Content-Encoding" is used as a modifier to the media-type. When present, its value indicates what
    1161          additional content codings have been applied to the entity-body, and thus what decoding mechanisms must be applied in order
    1162          to obtain the media-type referenced by the Content-Type header field. Content-Encoding is primarily used to allow a document
    1163          to be compressed without losing the identity of its underlying media type.
    1164       </p>
    1165       <div id="rfc.figure.u.30"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.30"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.31"></span>  <a href="#header.content-encoding" class="smpl">Content-Encoding</a>   = "Content-Encoding" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.content-encoding" class="smpl">Content-Encoding-v</a>
     1184            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.6">For matching, the "Basic Filtering" matching scheme, defined in <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3.3.1">Section 3.3.1</a> of <a href="#RFC4647" id="rfc.xref.RFC4647.2"><cite title="Matching of Language Tags">[RFC4647]</cite></a>, is used:
     1185            </p>
     1186            <blockquote id="rfc.section.6.4.p.7" cite="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3.3.1">
     1187               <p>A language range matches a particular language tag if, in a case-insensitive comparison, it exactly equals the tag, or if
     1188                  it exactly equals a prefix of the tag such that the first character following the prefix is "-".
     1189               </p>
     1190            </blockquote>
     1191            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.8">The special range "*", if present in the Accept-Language field, matches every tag not matched by any other range present in
     1192               the Accept-Language field.
     1193            </p>
     1194            <ul class="empty">
     1195               <li><b>Note:</b> This use of a prefix matching rule does not imply that language tags are assigned to languages in such a way that it is always
     1196                  true that if a user understands a language with a certain tag, then this user will also understand all languages with tags
     1197                  for which this tag is a prefix. The prefix rule simply allows the use of prefix tags if this is the case.
     1198               </li>
     1199            </ul>
     1200            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.9">The language quality factor assigned to a language-tag by the Accept-Language field is the quality value of the longest language-range
     1201               in the field that matches the language-tag. If no language-range in the field matches the tag, the language quality factor
     1202               assigned is 0. If no Accept-Language header is present in the request, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> assume that all languages are equally acceptable. If an Accept-Language header is present, then all languages which are assigned
     1203               a quality factor greater than 0 are acceptable.
     1204            </p>
     1205            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.10">It might be contrary to the privacy expectations of the user to send an Accept-Language header with the complete linguistic
     1206               preferences of the user in every request. For a discussion of this issue, see <a href="#privacy.issues.connected.to.accept.headers" title="Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers">Section&nbsp;8.1</a>.
     1207            </p>
     1208            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.11">As intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, it is recommended that client applications make the choice
     1209               of linguistic preference available to the user. If the choice is not made available, then the Accept-Language header field <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be given in the request.
     1210            </p>
     1211            <ul class="empty">
     1212               <li><b>Note:</b> When making the choice of linguistic preference available to the user, we remind implementors of the fact that users are not
     1213                  familiar with the details of language matching as described above, and should provide appropriate guidance. As an example,
     1214                  users might assume that on selecting "en-gb", they will be served any kind of English document if British English is not available.
     1215                  A user agent might suggest in such a case to add "en" to get the best matching behavior.
     1216               </li>
     1217            </ul>
     1218         </div>
     1219         <div id="header.content-encoding">
     1220            <div id="rfc.iref.c.2"></div>
     1221            <div id="rfc.iref.h.5"></div>
     1222            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.5"><a href="#rfc.section.6.5">6.5</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-encoding">Content-Encoding</a></h2>
     1223            <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.1">The entity-header field "Content-Encoding" is used as a modifier to the media-type. When present, its value indicates what
     1224               additional content codings have been applied to the entity-body, and thus what decoding mechanisms must be applied in order
     1225               to obtain the media-type referenced by the Content-Type header field. Content-Encoding is primarily used to allow a document
     1226               to be compressed without losing the identity of its underlying media type.
     1227            </p>
     1228            <div id="rfc.figure.u.30"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.30"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.31"></span>  <a href="#header.content-encoding" class="smpl">Content-Encoding</a>   = "Content-Encoding" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.content-encoding" class="smpl">Content-Encoding-v</a>
    11661229  <a href="#header.content-encoding" class="smpl">Content-Encoding-v</a> = 1#<a href="#content.codings" class="smpl">content-coding</a>
    11671230</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.3">Content codings are defined in <a href="#content.codings" title="Content Codings">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>. An example of its use is
    1168       </p>
    1169       <div id="rfc.figure.u.31"></div><pre class="text">  Content-Encoding: gzip
     1231            </p>
     1232            <div id="rfc.figure.u.31"></div><pre class="text">  Content-Encoding: gzip
    11701233</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.5">The content-coding is a characteristic of the entity identified by the Request-URI. Typically, the entity-body is stored with
    1171          this encoding and is only decoded before rendering or analogous usage. However, a non-transparent proxy <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> modify the content-coding if the new coding is known to be acceptable to the recipient, unless the "no-transform" cache-control
    1172          directive is present in the message.
    1173       </p>
    1174       <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.6">If the content-coding of an entity is not "identity", then the response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a Content-Encoding entity-header (<a href="#header.content-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.content-encoding.3" title="Content-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.5</a>) that lists the non-identity content-coding(s) used.
    1175       </p>
    1176       <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.7">If the content-coding of an entity in a request message is not acceptable to the origin server, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with a status code of 415 (Unsupported Media Type).
    1177       </p>
    1178       <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.8">If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the content codings <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be listed in the order in which they were applied. Additional information about the encoding parameters <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be provided by other entity-header fields not defined by this specification.
    1179       </p>
    1180       <div id="rfc.iref.c.3"></div>
    1181       <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div>
    1182       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6.6">6.6</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.content-language" href="#header.content-language">Content-Language</a></h2>
    1183       <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.1">The entity-header field "Content-Language" describes the natural language(s) of the intended audience for the enclosed entity.
    1184          Note that this might not be equivalent to all the languages used within the entity-body.
    1185       </p>
    1186       <div id="rfc.figure.u.32"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.32"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.33"></span>  <a href="#header.content-language" class="smpl">Content-Language</a>   = "Content-Language" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.content-language" class="smpl">Content-Language-v</a>
     1234               this encoding and is only decoded before rendering or analogous usage. However, a non-transparent proxy <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> modify the content-coding if the new coding is known to be acceptable to the recipient, unless the "no-transform" cache-control
     1235               directive is present in the message.
     1236            </p>
     1237            <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.6">If the content-coding of an entity is not "identity", then the response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a Content-Encoding entity-header (<a href="#header.content-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.content-encoding.3" title="Content-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.5</a>) that lists the non-identity content-coding(s) used.
     1238            </p>
     1239            <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.7">If the content-coding of an entity in a request message is not acceptable to the origin server, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with a status code of 415 (Unsupported Media Type).
     1240            </p>
     1241            <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.8">If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the content codings <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be listed in the order in which they were applied. Additional information about the encoding parameters <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be provided by other entity-header fields not defined by this specification.
     1242            </p>
     1243         </div>
     1244         <div id="header.content-language">
     1245            <div id="rfc.iref.c.3"></div>
     1246            <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div>
     1247            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6.6">6.6</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-language">Content-Language</a></h2>
     1248            <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.1">The entity-header field "Content-Language" describes the natural language(s) of the intended audience for the enclosed entity.
     1249               Note that this might not be equivalent to all the languages used within the entity-body.
     1250            </p>
     1251            <div id="rfc.figure.u.32"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.32"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.33"></span>  <a href="#header.content-language" class="smpl">Content-Language</a>   = "Content-Language" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.content-language" class="smpl">Content-Language-v</a>
    11871252  <a href="#header.content-language" class="smpl">Content-Language-v</a> = 1#<a href="#language.tags" class="smpl">language-tag</a>
    11881253</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.3">Language tags are defined in <a href="#language.tags" title="Language Tags">Section&nbsp;3.5</a>. The primary purpose of Content-Language is to allow a user to identify and differentiate entities according to the user's
    1189          own preferred language. Thus, if the body content is intended only for a Danish-literate audience, the appropriate field is
    1190       </p>
    1191       <div id="rfc.figure.u.33"></div><pre class="text">  Content-Language: da
     1254               own preferred language. Thus, if the body content is intended only for a Danish-literate audience, the appropriate field is
     1255            </p>
     1256            <div id="rfc.figure.u.33"></div><pre class="text">  Content-Language: da
    11921257</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.5">If no Content-Language is specified, the default is that the content is intended for all language audiences. This might mean
    1193          that the sender does not consider it to be specific to any natural language, or that the sender does not know for which language
    1194          it is intended.
    1195       </p>
    1196       <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.6">Multiple languages <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be listed for content that is intended for multiple audiences. For example, a rendition of the "Treaty of Waitangi," presented
    1197          simultaneously in the original Maori and English versions, would call for
    1198       </p>
    1199       <div id="rfc.figure.u.34"></div><pre class="text">  Content-Language: mi, en
     1258               that the sender does not consider it to be specific to any natural language, or that the sender does not know for which language
     1259               it is intended.
     1260            </p>
     1261            <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.6">Multiple languages <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be listed for content that is intended for multiple audiences. For example, a rendition of the "Treaty of Waitangi," presented
     1262               simultaneously in the original Maori and English versions, would call for
     1263            </p>
     1264            <div id="rfc.figure.u.34"></div><pre class="text">  Content-Language: mi, en
    12001265</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.8">However, just because multiple languages are present within an entity does not mean that it is intended for multiple linguistic
    1201          audiences. An example would be a beginner's language primer, such as "A First Lesson in Latin," which is clearly intended
    1202          to be used by an English-literate audience. In this case, the Content-Language would properly only include "en".
    1203       </p>
    1204       <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.9">Content-Language <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be applied to any media type -- it is not limited to textual documents.
    1205       </p>
    1206       <div id="rfc.iref.c.4"></div>
    1207       <div id="rfc.iref.h.7"></div>
    1208       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.7"><a href="#rfc.section.6.7">6.7</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.content-location" href="#header.content-location">Content-Location</a></h2>
    1209       <p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.1">The entity-header field "Content-Location" <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used to supply the resource location for the entity enclosed in the message when that entity is accessible from a location
    1210          separate from the requested resource's URI. A server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> provide a Content-Location for the variant corresponding to the response entity; especially in the case where a resource has
    1211          multiple entities associated with it, and those entities actually have separate locations by which they might be individually
    1212          accessed, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> provide a Content-Location for the particular variant which is returned.
    1213       </p>
    1214       <div id="rfc.figure.u.35"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.34"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.35"></span>  <a href="#header.content-location" class="smpl">Content-Location</a>   = "Content-Location" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>
     1266               audiences. An example would be a beginner's language primer, such as "A First Lesson in Latin," which is clearly intended
     1267               to be used by an English-literate audience. In this case, the Content-Language would properly only include "en".
     1268            </p>
     1269            <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.9">Content-Language <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be applied to any media type -- it is not limited to textual documents.
     1270            </p>
     1271         </div>
     1272         <div id="header.content-location">
     1273            <div id="rfc.iref.c.4"></div>
     1274            <div id="rfc.iref.h.7"></div>
     1275            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.7"><a href="#rfc.section.6.7">6.7</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-location">Content-Location</a></h2>
     1276            <p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.1">The entity-header field "Content-Location" <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used to supply the resource location for the entity enclosed in the message when that entity is accessible from a location
     1277               separate from the requested resource's URI. A server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> provide a Content-Location for the variant corresponding to the response entity; especially in the case where a resource has
     1278               multiple entities associated with it, and those entities actually have separate locations by which they might be individually
     1279               accessed, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> provide a Content-Location for the particular variant which is returned.
     1280            </p>
     1281            <div id="rfc.figure.u.35"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.34"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.35"></span>  <a href="#header.content-location" class="smpl">Content-Location</a>   = "Content-Location" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>
    12151282                    <a href="#header.content-location" class="smpl">Content-Location-v</a>
    12161283  <a href="#header.content-location" class="smpl">Content-Location-v</a> =
    12171284                    <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">absolute-URI</a> / <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">relativeURI</a>
    12181285</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.3">The value of Content-Location also defines the base URI for the entity.</p>
    1219       <p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.4">The Content-Location value is not a replacement for the original requested URI; it is only a statement of the location of
    1220          the resource corresponding to this particular entity at the time of the request. Future requests <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> specify the Content-Location URI as the request-URI if the desire is to identify the source of that particular entity.
    1221       </p>
    1222       <p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.5">A cache cannot assume that an entity with a Content-Location different from the URI used to retrieve it can be used to respond
    1223          to later requests on that Content-Location URI. However, the Content-Location can be used to differentiate between multiple
    1224          entities retrieved from a single requested resource, as described in <a href="p6-cache.html#caching.negotiated.responses" title="Caching Negotiated Responses">Section 8</a> of <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>.
    1225       </p>
    1226       <p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.6">If the Content-Location is a relative URI, the relative URI is interpreted relative to the Request-URI.</p>
    1227       <p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.7">The meaning of the Content-Location header in PUT or POST requests is undefined; servers are free to ignore it in those cases.</p>
    1228       <div id="rfc.iref.c.5"></div>
    1229       <div id="rfc.iref.h.8"></div>
    1230       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.8"><a href="#rfc.section.6.8">6.8</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.content-md5" href="#header.content-md5">Content-MD5</a></h2>
    1231       <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.1">The entity-header field "Content-MD5", as defined in <a href="#RFC1864" id="rfc.xref.RFC1864.1"><cite title="The Content-MD5 Header Field">[RFC1864]</cite></a>, is an MD5 digest of the entity-body for the purpose of providing an end-to-end message integrity check (MIC) of the entity-body.
    1232          (Note: a MIC is good for detecting accidental modification of the entity-body in transit, but is not proof against malicious
    1233          attacks.)
    1234       </p>
    1235       <div id="rfc.figure.u.36"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.36"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.37"></span>  <a href="#header.content-md5" class="smpl">Content-MD5</a>   = "Content-MD5" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.content-md5" class="smpl">Content-MD5-v</a>
     1286            <p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.4">The Content-Location value is not a replacement for the original requested URI; it is only a statement of the location of
     1287               the resource corresponding to this particular entity at the time of the request. Future requests <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> specify the Content-Location URI as the request-URI if the desire is to identify the source of that particular entity.
     1288            </p>
     1289            <p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.5">A cache cannot assume that an entity with a Content-Location different from the URI used to retrieve it can be used to respond
     1290               to later requests on that Content-Location URI. However, the Content-Location can be used to differentiate between multiple
     1291               entities retrieved from a single requested resource, as described in <a href="p6-cache.html#caching.negotiated.responses" title="Caching Negotiated Responses">Section 8</a> of <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>.
     1292            </p>
     1293            <p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.6">If the Content-Location is a relative URI, the relative URI is interpreted relative to the Request-URI.</p>
     1294            <p id="rfc.section.6.7.p.7">The meaning of the Content-Location header in PUT or POST requests is undefined; servers are free to ignore it in those cases.</p>
     1295         </div>
     1296         <div id="header.content-md5">
     1297            <div id="rfc.iref.c.5"></div>
     1298            <div id="rfc.iref.h.8"></div>
     1299            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.8"><a href="#rfc.section.6.8">6.8</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-md5">Content-MD5</a></h2>
     1300            <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.1">The entity-header field "Content-MD5", as defined in <a href="#RFC1864" id="rfc.xref.RFC1864.1"><cite title="The Content-MD5 Header Field">[RFC1864]</cite></a>, is an MD5 digest of the entity-body for the purpose of providing an end-to-end message integrity check (MIC) of the entity-body.
     1301               (Note: a MIC is good for detecting accidental modification of the entity-body in transit, but is not proof against malicious
     1302               attacks.)
     1303            </p>
     1304            <div id="rfc.figure.u.36"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.36"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.37"></span>  <a href="#header.content-md5" class="smpl">Content-MD5</a>   = "Content-MD5" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.content-md5" class="smpl">Content-MD5-v</a>
    12361305  <a href="#header.content-md5" class="smpl">Content-MD5-v</a> = &lt;base64 of 128 bit MD5 digest as per <a href="#RFC1864" id="rfc.xref.RFC1864.2"><cite title="The Content-MD5 Header Field">[RFC1864]</cite></a>&gt;
    12371306</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.3">The Content-MD5 header field <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be generated by an origin server or client to function as an integrity check of the entity-body. Only origin servers or clients <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> generate the Content-MD5 header field; proxies and gateways <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> generate it, as this would defeat its value as an end-to-end integrity check. Any recipient of the entity-body, including
    1238          gateways and proxies, <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> check that the digest value in this header field matches that of the entity-body as received.
    1239       </p>
    1240       <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.4">The MD5 digest is computed based on the content of the entity-body, including any content-coding that has been applied, but
    1241          not including any transfer-encoding applied to the message-body. If the message is received with a transfer-encoding, that
    1242          encoding <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be removed prior to checking the Content-MD5 value against the received entity.
    1243       </p>
    1244       <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.5">This has the result that the digest is computed on the octets of the entity-body exactly as, and in the order that, they would
    1245          be sent if no transfer-encoding were being applied.
    1246       </p>
    1247       <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.6">HTTP extends RFC 1864 to permit the digest to be computed for MIME composite media-types (e.g., multipart/* and message/rfc822),
    1248          but this does not change how the digest is computed as defined in the preceding paragraph.
    1249       </p>
    1250       <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.7">There are several consequences of this. The entity-body for composite types <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> contain many body-parts, each with its own MIME and HTTP headers (including Content-MD5, Content-Transfer-Encoding, and Content-Encoding
    1251          headers). If a body-part has a Content-Transfer-Encoding or Content-Encoding header, it is assumed that the content of the
    1252          body-part has had the encoding applied, and the body-part is included in the Content-MD5 digest as is -- i.e., after the application.
    1253          The Transfer-Encoding header field is not allowed within body-parts.
    1254       </p>
    1255       <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.8">Conversion of all line breaks to CRLF <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be done before computing or checking the digest: the line break convention used in the text actually transmitted <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be left unaltered when computing the digest.
    1256       </p>
    1257       <ul class="empty">
    1258          <li> <b>Note:</b> while the definition of Content-MD5 is exactly the same for HTTP as in RFC 1864 for MIME entity-bodies, there are several
    1259             ways in which the application of Content-MD5 to HTTP entity-bodies differs from its application to MIME entity-bodies. One
    1260             is that HTTP, unlike MIME, does not use Content-Transfer-Encoding, and does use Transfer-Encoding and Content-Encoding. Another
    1261             is that HTTP more frequently uses binary content types than MIME, so it is worth noting that, in such cases, the byte order
    1262             used to compute the digest is the transmission byte order defined for the type. Lastly, HTTP allows transmission of text types
    1263             with any of several line break conventions and not just the canonical form using CRLF.
    1264          </li>
    1265       </ul>
    1266       <div id="rfc.iref.c.6"></div>
    1267       <div id="rfc.iref.h.9"></div>
    1268       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.9"><a href="#rfc.section.6.9">6.9</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.content-type" href="#header.content-type">Content-Type</a></h2>
    1269       <p id="rfc.section.6.9.p.1">The entity-header field "Content-Type" indicates the media type of the entity-body sent to the recipient or, in the case of
    1270          the HEAD method, the media type that would have been sent had the request been a GET.
    1271       </p>
    1272       <div id="rfc.figure.u.37"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.38"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.39"></span>  <a href="#header.content-type" class="smpl">Content-Type</a>   = "Content-Type" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.content-type" class="smpl">Content-Type-v</a>
     1307               gateways and proxies, <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> check that the digest value in this header field matches that of the entity-body as received.
     1308            </p>
     1309            <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.4">The MD5 digest is computed based on the content of the entity-body, including any content-coding that has been applied, but
     1310               not including any transfer-encoding applied to the message-body. If the message is received with a transfer-encoding, that
     1311               encoding <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be removed prior to checking the Content-MD5 value against the received entity.
     1312            </p>
     1313            <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.5">This has the result that the digest is computed on the octets of the entity-body exactly as, and in the order that, they would
     1314               be sent if no transfer-encoding were being applied.
     1315            </p>
     1316            <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.6">HTTP extends RFC 1864 to permit the digest to be computed for MIME composite media-types (e.g., multipart/* and message/rfc822),
     1317               but this does not change how the digest is computed as defined in the preceding paragraph.
     1318            </p>
     1319            <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.7">There are several consequences of this. The entity-body for composite types <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> contain many body-parts, each with its own MIME and HTTP headers (including Content-MD5, Content-Transfer-Encoding, and Content-Encoding
     1320               headers). If a body-part has a Content-Transfer-Encoding or Content-Encoding header, it is assumed that the content of the
     1321               body-part has had the encoding applied, and the body-part is included in the Content-MD5 digest as is -- i.e., after the application.
     1322               The Transfer-Encoding header field is not allowed within body-parts.
     1323            </p>
     1324            <p id="rfc.section.6.8.p.8">Conversion of all line breaks to CRLF <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be done before computing or checking the digest: the line break convention used in the text actually transmitted <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be left unaltered when computing the digest.
     1325            </p>
     1326            <ul class="empty">
     1327               <li><b>Note:</b> while the definition of Content-MD5 is exactly the same for HTTP as in RFC 1864 for MIME entity-bodies, there are several
     1328                  ways in which the application of Content-MD5 to HTTP entity-bodies differs from its application to MIME entity-bodies. One
     1329                  is that HTTP, unlike MIME, does not use Content-Transfer-Encoding, and does use Transfer-Encoding and Content-Encoding. Another
     1330                  is that HTTP more frequently uses binary content types than MIME, so it is worth noting that, in such cases, the byte order
     1331                  used to compute the digest is the transmission byte order defined for the type. Lastly, HTTP allows transmission of text types
     1332                  with any of several line break conventions and not just the canonical form using CRLF.
     1333               </li>
     1334            </ul>
     1335         </div>
     1336         <div id="header.content-type">
     1337            <div id="rfc.iref.c.6"></div>
     1338            <div id="rfc.iref.h.9"></div>
     1339            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.9"><a href="#rfc.section.6.9">6.9</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.content-type">Content-Type</a></h2>
     1340            <p id="rfc.section.6.9.p.1">The entity-header field "Content-Type" indicates the media type of the entity-body sent to the recipient or, in the case of
     1341               the HEAD method, the media type that would have been sent had the request been a GET.
     1342            </p>
     1343            <div id="rfc.figure.u.37"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.38"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.39"></span>  <a href="#header.content-type" class="smpl">Content-Type</a>   = "Content-Type" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#header.content-type" class="smpl">Content-Type-v</a>
    12731344  <a href="#header.content-type" class="smpl">Content-Type-v</a> = <a href="#media.types" class="smpl">media-type</a>
    12741345</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.9.p.3">Media types are defined in <a href="#media.types" title="Media Types">Section&nbsp;3.3</a>. An example of the field is
    1275       </p>
    1276       <div id="rfc.figure.u.38"></div><pre class="text">  Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-4
     1346            </p>
     1347            <div id="rfc.figure.u.38"></div><pre class="text">  Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-4
    12771348</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.9.p.5">Further discussion of methods for identifying the media type of an entity is provided in <a href="#type" title="Type">Section&nbsp;4.2.1</a>.
    1278       </p>
    1279       <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;<a id="IANA.considerations" href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1>
    1280       <h2 id="rfc.section.7.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1">7.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="message.header.registration" href="#message.header.registration">Message Header Registration</a></h2>
    1281       <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.1">The Message Header Registry located at &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html">http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html</a>&gt; should be updated with the permanent registrations below (see <a href="#RFC3864" id="rfc.xref.RFC3864.1"><cite title="Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields">[RFC3864]</cite></a>):
    1282       </p>
    1283       <div id="rfc.table.1">
    1284          <div id="iana.header.registration.table"></div>
    1285          <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
    1286             <thead>
    1287                <tr>
    1288                   <th>Header Field Name</th>
    1289                   <th>Protocol</th>
    1290                   <th>Status</th>
    1291                   <th>Reference</th>
    1292                </tr>
    1293             </thead>
    1294             <tbody>
    1295                <tr>
    1296                   <td class="left">Accept</td>
    1297                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1298                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1299                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.accept" id="rfc.xref.header.accept.3" title="Accept">Section&nbsp;6.1</a>
    1300                   </td>
    1301                </tr>
    1302                <tr>
    1303                   <td class="left">Accept-Charset</td>
    1304                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1305                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1306                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.accept-charset" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-charset.2" title="Accept-Charset">Section&nbsp;6.2</a>
    1307                   </td>
    1308                </tr>
    1309                <tr>
    1310                   <td class="left">Accept-Encoding</td>
    1311                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1312                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1313                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.accept-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-encoding.3" title="Accept-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.3</a>
    1314                   </td>
    1315                </tr>
    1316                <tr>
    1317                   <td class="left">Accept-Language</td>
    1318                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1319                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1320                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.accept-language" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-language.2" title="Accept-Language">Section&nbsp;6.4</a>
    1321                   </td>
    1322                </tr>
    1323                <tr>
    1324                   <td class="left">Content-Disposition</td>
    1325                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1326                   <td class="left"></td>
    1327                   <td class="left"> <a href="#content-disposition" id="rfc.xref.content-disposition.1" title="Content-Disposition">Appendix&nbsp;B.1</a>
    1328                   </td>
    1329                </tr>
    1330                <tr>
    1331                   <td class="left">Content-Encoding</td>
    1332                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1333                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1334                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.content-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.content-encoding.4" title="Content-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.5</a>
    1335                   </td>
    1336                </tr>
    1337                <tr>
    1338                   <td class="left">Content-Language</td>
    1339                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1340                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1341                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.content-language" id="rfc.xref.header.content-language.2" title="Content-Language">Section&nbsp;6.6</a>
    1342                   </td>
    1343                </tr>
    1344                <tr>
    1345                   <td class="left">Content-Location</td>
    1346                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1347                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1348                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.content-location" id="rfc.xref.header.content-location.2" title="Content-Location">Section&nbsp;6.7</a>
    1349                   </td>
    1350                </tr>
    1351                <tr>
    1352                   <td class="left">Content-MD5</td>
    1353                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1354                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1355                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.content-md5" id="rfc.xref.header.content-md5.2" title="Content-MD5">Section&nbsp;6.8</a>
    1356                   </td>
    1357                </tr>
    1358                <tr>
    1359                   <td class="left">Content-Type</td>
    1360                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1361                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1362                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.content-type" id="rfc.xref.header.content-type.3" title="Content-Type">Section&nbsp;6.9</a>
    1363                   </td>
    1364                </tr>
    1365                <tr>
    1366                   <td class="left">MIME-Version</td>
    1367                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1368                   <td class="left"></td>
    1369                   <td class="left"> <a href="#mime-version" id="rfc.xref.mime-version.1" title="MIME-Version">Appendix&nbsp;A.1</a>
    1370                   </td>
    1371                </tr>
    1372             </tbody>
    1373          </table>
     1349            </p>
     1350         </div>
    13741351      </div>
    1375       <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.2">The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet Engineering Task Force".</p>
    1376       <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;<a id="security.considerations" href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1>
    1377       <p id="rfc.section.8.p.1">This section is meant to inform application developers, information providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1
    1378          as described by this document. The discussion does not include definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does
    1379          make some suggestions for reducing security risks.
    1380       </p>
    1381       <h2 id="rfc.section.8.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="privacy.issues.connected.to.accept.headers" href="#privacy.issues.connected.to.accept.headers">Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers</a></h2>
    1382       <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.1">Accept request-headers can reveal information about the user to all servers which are accessed. The Accept-Language header
    1383          in particular can reveal information the user would consider to be of a private nature, because the understanding of particular
    1384          languages is often strongly correlated to the membership of a particular ethnic group. User agents which offer the option
    1385          to configure the contents of an Accept-Language header to be sent in every request are strongly encouraged to let the configuration
    1386          process include a message which makes the user aware of the loss of privacy involved.
    1387       </p>
    1388       <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.2">An approach that limits the loss of privacy would be for a user agent to omit the sending of Accept-Language headers by default,
    1389          and to ask the user whether or not to start sending Accept-Language headers to a server if it detects, by looking for any
    1390          Vary response-header fields generated by the server, that such sending could improve the quality of service.
    1391       </p>
    1392       <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.3">Elaborate user-customized accept header fields sent in every request, in particular if these include quality values, can be
    1393          used by servers as relatively reliable and long-lived user identifiers. Such user identifiers would allow content providers
    1394          to do click-trail tracking, and would allow collaborating content providers to match cross-server click-trails or form submissions
    1395          of individual users. Note that for many users not behind a proxy, the network address of the host running the user agent will
    1396          also serve as a long-lived user identifier. In environments where proxies are used to enhance privacy, user agents ought to
    1397          be conservative in offering accept header configuration options to end users. As an extreme privacy measure, proxies could
    1398          filter the accept headers in relayed requests. General purpose user agents which provide a high degree of header configurability <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> warn users about the loss of privacy which can be involved.
    1399       </p>
    1400       <h2 id="rfc.section.8.2"><a href="#rfc.section.8.2">8.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="content-disposition.issues" href="#content-disposition.issues">Content-Disposition Issues</a></h2>
    1401       <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.1"> <a href="#RFC2183" id="rfc.xref.RFC2183.1"><cite title="Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field">[RFC2183]</cite></a>, from which the often implemented Content-Disposition (see <a href="#content-disposition" id="rfc.xref.content-disposition.2" title="Content-Disposition">Appendix&nbsp;B.1</a>) header in HTTP is derived, has a number of very serious security considerations. Content-Disposition is not part of the
    1402          HTTP standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for implementors. See <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2183#section-5">Section 5</a> of <a href="#RFC2183" id="rfc.xref.RFC2183.2"><cite title="Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field">[RFC2183]</cite></a> for details.
    1403       </p>
    1404       <h1 id="rfc.section.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a>&nbsp;<a id="ack" href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></h1>
     1352      <div id="IANA.considerations">
     1353         <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1>
     1354         <div id="message.header.registration">
     1355            <h2 id="rfc.section.7.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1">7.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#message.header.registration">Message Header Registration</a></h2>
     1356            <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.1">The Message Header Registry located at &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html">http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html</a>&gt; should be updated with the permanent registrations below (see <a href="#RFC3864" id="rfc.xref.RFC3864.1"><cite title="Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields">[RFC3864]</cite></a>):
     1357            </p>
     1358            <div id="rfc.table.1">
     1359               <div id="iana.header.registration.table"></div>
     1360               <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
     1361                  <thead>
     1362                     <tr>
     1363                        <th>Header Field Name</th>
     1364                        <th>Protocol</th>
     1365                        <th>Status</th>
     1366                        <th>Reference</th>
     1367                     </tr>
     1368                  </thead>
     1369                  <tbody>
     1370                     <tr>
     1371                        <td class="left">Accept</td>
     1372                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1373                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1374                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.accept" id="rfc.xref.header.accept.3" title="Accept">Section&nbsp;6.1</a>
     1375                        </td>
     1376                     </tr>
     1377                     <tr>
     1378                        <td class="left">Accept-Charset</td>
     1379                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1380                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1381                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.accept-charset" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-charset.2" title="Accept-Charset">Section&nbsp;6.2</a>
     1382                        </td>
     1383                     </tr>
     1384                     <tr>
     1385                        <td class="left">Accept-Encoding</td>
     1386                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1387                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1388                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.accept-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-encoding.3" title="Accept-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.3</a>
     1389                        </td>
     1390                     </tr>
     1391                     <tr>
     1392                        <td class="left">Accept-Language</td>
     1393                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1394                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1395                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.accept-language" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-language.2" title="Accept-Language">Section&nbsp;6.4</a>
     1396                        </td>
     1397                     </tr>
     1398                     <tr>
     1399                        <td class="left">Content-Disposition</td>
     1400                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1401                        <td class="left"></td>
     1402                        <td class="left"><a href="#content-disposition" id="rfc.xref.content-disposition.1" title="Content-Disposition">Appendix&nbsp;B.1</a>
     1403                        </td>
     1404                     </tr>
     1405                     <tr>
     1406                        <td class="left">Content-Encoding</td>
     1407                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1408                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1409                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.content-encoding" id="rfc.xref.header.content-encoding.4" title="Content-Encoding">Section&nbsp;6.5</a>
     1410                        </td>
     1411                     </tr>
     1412                     <tr>
     1413                        <td class="left">Content-Language</td>
     1414                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1415                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1416                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.content-language" id="rfc.xref.header.content-language.2" title="Content-Language">Section&nbsp;6.6</a>
     1417                        </td>
     1418                     </tr>
     1419                     <tr>
     1420                        <td class="left">Content-Location</td>
     1421                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1422                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1423                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.content-location" id="rfc.xref.header.content-location.2" title="Content-Location">Section&nbsp;6.7</a>
     1424                        </td>
     1425                     </tr>
     1426                     <tr>
     1427                        <td class="left">Content-MD5</td>
     1428                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1429                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1430                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.content-md5" id="rfc.xref.header.content-md5.2" title="Content-MD5">Section&nbsp;6.8</a>
     1431                        </td>
     1432                     </tr>
     1433                     <tr>
     1434                        <td class="left">Content-Type</td>
     1435                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1436                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1437                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.content-type" id="rfc.xref.header.content-type.3" title="Content-Type">Section&nbsp;6.9</a>
     1438                        </td>
     1439                     </tr>
     1440                     <tr>
     1441                        <td class="left">MIME-Version</td>
     1442                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1443                        <td class="left"></td>
     1444                        <td class="left"><a href="#mime-version" id="rfc.xref.mime-version.1" title="MIME-Version">Appendix&nbsp;A.1</a>
     1445                        </td>
     1446                     </tr>
     1447                  </tbody>
     1448               </table>
     1449            </div>
     1450            <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.2">The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet Engineering Task Force".</p>
     1451         </div>
     1452      </div>
     1453      <div id="security.considerations">
     1454         <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1>
     1455         <p id="rfc.section.8.p.1">This section is meant to inform application developers, information providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1
     1456            as described by this document. The discussion does not include definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does
     1457            make some suggestions for reducing security risks.
     1458         </p>
     1459         <div id="privacy.issues.connected.to.accept.headers">
     1460            <h2 id="rfc.section.8.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#privacy.issues.connected.to.accept.headers">Privacy Issues Connected to Accept Headers</a></h2>
     1461            <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.1">Accept request-headers can reveal information about the user to all servers which are accessed. The Accept-Language header
     1462               in particular can reveal information the user would consider to be of a private nature, because the understanding of particular
     1463               languages is often strongly correlated to the membership of a particular ethnic group. User agents which offer the option
     1464               to configure the contents of an Accept-Language header to be sent in every request are strongly encouraged to let the configuration
     1465               process include a message which makes the user aware of the loss of privacy involved.
     1466            </p>
     1467            <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.2">An approach that limits the loss of privacy would be for a user agent to omit the sending of Accept-Language headers by default,
     1468               and to ask the user whether or not to start sending Accept-Language headers to a server if it detects, by looking for any
     1469               Vary response-header fields generated by the server, that such sending could improve the quality of service.
     1470            </p>
     1471            <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.3">Elaborate user-customized accept header fields sent in every request, in particular if these include quality values, can be
     1472               used by servers as relatively reliable and long-lived user identifiers. Such user identifiers would allow content providers
     1473               to do click-trail tracking, and would allow collaborating content providers to match cross-server click-trails or form submissions
     1474               of individual users. Note that for many users not behind a proxy, the network address of the host running the user agent will
     1475               also serve as a long-lived user identifier. In environments where proxies are used to enhance privacy, user agents ought to
     1476               be conservative in offering accept header configuration options to end users. As an extreme privacy measure, proxies could
     1477               filter the accept headers in relayed requests. General purpose user agents which provide a high degree of header configurability <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> warn users about the loss of privacy which can be involved.
     1478            </p>
     1479         </div>
     1480         <div id="content-disposition.issues">
     1481            <h2 id="rfc.section.8.2"><a href="#rfc.section.8.2">8.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#content-disposition.issues">Content-Disposition Issues</a></h2>
     1482            <p id="rfc.section.8.2.p.1"><a href="#RFC2183" id="rfc.xref.RFC2183.1"><cite title="Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field">[RFC2183]</cite></a>, from which the often implemented Content-Disposition (see <a href="#content-disposition" id="rfc.xref.content-disposition.2" title="Content-Disposition">Appendix&nbsp;B.1</a>) header in HTTP is derived, has a number of very serious security considerations. Content-Disposition is not part of the
     1483               HTTP standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for implementors. See <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2183#section-5">Section 5</a> of <a href="#RFC2183" id="rfc.xref.RFC2183.2"><cite title="Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field">[RFC2183]</cite></a> for details.
     1484            </p>
     1485         </div>
     1486      </div>
     1487      <div id="ack">
     1488         <h1 id="rfc.section.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></h1>
     1489      </div>
    14051490      <h1 id="rfc.references"><a id="rfc.section.10" href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a> References
    14061491      </h1>
    14071492      <h2 id="rfc.references.1"><a href="#rfc.section.10.1" id="rfc.section.10.1">10.1</a> Normative References
    14081493      </h2>
    1409       <table>                             
     1494      <table>
    14101495         <tr>
    14111496            <td class="reference"><b id="ISO-8859-1">[ISO-8859-1]</b></td>
     
    14141499         <tr>
    14151500            <td class="reference"><b id="Part1">[Part1]</b></td>
    1416             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-05">HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-05 (work in progress), November&nbsp;2008.
     1501            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-05">HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-05 (work in progress), November&nbsp;2008.
    14171502            </td>
    14181503         </tr>
    14191504         <tr>
    14201505            <td class="reference"><b id="Part2">[Part2]</b></td>
    1421             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-05">HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-05 (work in progress), November&nbsp;2008.
     1506            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-05">HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-05 (work in progress), November&nbsp;2008.
    14221507            </td>
    14231508         </tr>
    14241509         <tr>
    14251510            <td class="reference"><b id="Part4">[Part4]</b></td>
    1426             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-05">HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-05 (work in progress), November&nbsp;2008.
     1511            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-05">HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-05 (work in progress), November&nbsp;2008.
    14271512            </td>
    14281513         </tr>
    14291514         <tr>
    14301515            <td class="reference"><b id="Part5">[Part5]</b></td>
    1431             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-05">HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-05 (work in progress), November&nbsp;2008.
     1516            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-05">HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-05 (work in progress), November&nbsp;2008.
    14321517            </td>
    14331518         </tr>
    14341519         <tr>
    14351520            <td class="reference"><b id="Part6">[Part6]</b></td>
    1436             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-05">HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-05 (work in progress), November&nbsp;2008.
     1521            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-05">HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-05 (work in progress), November&nbsp;2008.
    14371522            </td>
    14381523         </tr>
    14391524         <tr>
    14401525            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1766">[RFC1766]</b></td>
    1441             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no" title="UNINETT">Alvestrand, H.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1766">Tags for the Identification of Languages</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1766, March&nbsp;1995.
     1526            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no" title="UNINETT">Alvestrand, H.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1766">Tags for the Identification of Languages</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1766, March&nbsp;1995.
    14421527            </td>
    14431528         </tr>
    14441529         <tr>
    14451530            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1864">[RFC1864]</b></td>
    1446             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:jgm+@cmu.edu" title="Carnegie Mellon University">Myers, J.</a> and <a href="mailto:mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us" title="Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.">M. Rose</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1864">The Content-MD5 Header Field</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1864, October&nbsp;1995.
     1531            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:jgm+@cmu.edu" title="Carnegie Mellon University">Myers, J.</a> and <a href="mailto:mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us" title="Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.">M. Rose</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1864">The Content-MD5 Header Field</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1864, October&nbsp;1995.
    14471532            </td>
    14481533         </tr>
    14491534         <tr>
    14501535            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1950">[RFC1950]</b></td>
    1451             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ghost@aladdin.com" title="Aladdin Enterprises">Deutsch, L.</a> and J-L. Gailly, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1950">ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification version 3.3</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1950, May&nbsp;1996.<br>RFC 1950 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less stable than this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference
     1536            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ghost@aladdin.com" title="Aladdin Enterprises">Deutsch, L.</a> and J-L. Gailly, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1950">ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification version 3.3</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1950, May&nbsp;1996.<br>RFC 1950 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less stable than this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference
    14521537               was present since the publication of RFC 2068 in 1997 (<a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>), therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in practice. See also <a href="#BCP97" id="rfc.xref.BCP97.1"><cite title="Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents">[BCP97]</cite></a>.
    14531538            </td>
     
    14551540         <tr>
    14561541            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1951">[RFC1951]</b></td>
    1457             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ghost@aladdin.com" title="Aladdin Enterprises">Deutsch, P.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1951">DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification version 1.3</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1951, May&nbsp;1996.<br>RFC 1951 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less stable than this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference
     1542            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ghost@aladdin.com" title="Aladdin Enterprises">Deutsch, P.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1951">DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification version 1.3</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1951, May&nbsp;1996.<br>RFC 1951 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less stable than this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference
    14581543               was present since the publication of RFC 2068 in 1997 (<a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>), therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in practice. See also <a href="#BCP97" id="rfc.xref.BCP97.2"><cite title="Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents">[BCP97]</cite></a>.
    14591544            </td>
     
    14611546         <tr>
    14621547            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1952">[RFC1952]</b></td>
    1463             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ghost@aladdin.com" title="Aladdin Enterprises">Deutsch, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:gzip@prep.ai.mit.edu">Gailly, J-L.</a>, <a href="mailto:madler@alumni.caltech.edu">Adler, M.</a>, <a href="mailto:ghost@aladdin.com">Deutsch, L.</a>, and <a href="mailto:randeg@alumni.rpi.edu">G. Randers-Pehrson</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1952">GZIP file format specification version 4.3</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1952, May&nbsp;1996.<br>RFC 1952 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less stable than this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference
     1548            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ghost@aladdin.com" title="Aladdin Enterprises">Deutsch, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:gzip@prep.ai.mit.edu">Gailly, J-L.</a>, <a href="mailto:madler@alumni.caltech.edu">Adler, M.</a>, <a href="mailto:ghost@aladdin.com">Deutsch, L.</a>, and <a href="mailto:randeg@alumni.rpi.edu">G. Randers-Pehrson</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1952">GZIP file format specification version 4.3</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1952, May&nbsp;1996.<br>RFC 1952 is an Informational RFC, thus it may be less stable than this specification. On the other hand, this downward reference
    14641549               was present since the publication of RFC 2068 in 1997 (<a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>), therefore it is unlikely to cause problems in practice. See also <a href="#BCP97" id="rfc.xref.BCP97.3"><cite title="Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents">[BCP97]</cite></a>.
    14651550            </td>
     
    14671552         <tr>
    14681553            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2045">[RFC2045]</b></td>
    1469             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ned@innosoft.com" title="Innosoft International, Inc.">Freed, N.</a> and <a href="mailto:nsb@nsb.fv.com" title="First Virtual Holdings">N. Borenstein</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045">Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2045, November&nbsp;1996.
     1554            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ned@innosoft.com" title="Innosoft International, Inc.">Freed, N.</a> and <a href="mailto:nsb@nsb.fv.com" title="First Virtual Holdings">N. Borenstein</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045">Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2045, November&nbsp;1996.
    14701555            </td>
    14711556         </tr>
    14721557         <tr>
    14731558            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2046">[RFC2046]</b></td>
    1474             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ned@innosoft.com" title="Innosoft International, Inc.">Freed, N.</a> and <a href="mailto:nsb@nsb.fv.com" title="First Virtual Holdings">N. Borenstein</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2046">Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2046, November&nbsp;1996.
     1559            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ned@innosoft.com" title="Innosoft International, Inc.">Freed, N.</a> and <a href="mailto:nsb@nsb.fv.com" title="First Virtual Holdings">N. Borenstein</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2046">Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2046, November&nbsp;1996.
    14751560            </td>
    14761561         </tr>
    14771562         <tr>
    14781563            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2119">[RFC2119]</b></td>
    1479             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:sob@harvard.edu" title="Harvard University">Bradner, S.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>”, BCP&nbsp;14, RFC&nbsp;2119, March&nbsp;1997.
     1564            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:sob@harvard.edu" title="Harvard University">Bradner, S.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>”, BCP&nbsp;14, RFC&nbsp;2119, March&nbsp;1997.
    14801565            </td>
    14811566         </tr>
    14821567         <tr>
    14831568            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC4647">[RFC4647]</b></td>
    1484             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:addison@inter-locale.com" title="Yahoo! Inc.">Phillips, A., Ed.</a> and <a href="mailto:mark.davis@macchiato.com" title="Google">M. Davis, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647">Matching of Language Tags</a>”, BCP&nbsp;47, RFC&nbsp;4647, September&nbsp;2006.
     1569            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:addison@inter-locale.com" title="Yahoo! Inc.">Phillips, A., Ed.</a> and <a href="mailto:mark.davis@macchiato.com" title="Google">M. Davis, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647">Matching of Language Tags</a>”, BCP&nbsp;47, RFC&nbsp;4647, September&nbsp;2006.
    14851570            </td>
    14861571         </tr>
     
    14881573      <h2 id="rfc.references.2"><a href="#rfc.section.10.2" id="rfc.section.10.2">10.2</a> Informative References
    14891574      </h2>
    1490       <table>                           
     1575      <table>
    14911576         <tr>
    14921577            <td class="reference"><b id="BCP97">[BCP97]</b></td>
    1493             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:klensin+ietf@jck.com">Klensin, J.</a> and <a href="mailto:hartmans-ietf@mit.edu" title="MIT">S. Hartman</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4897">Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents</a>”, BCP&nbsp;97, RFC&nbsp;4897, June&nbsp;2007.
     1578            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:klensin+ietf@jck.com">Klensin, J.</a> and <a href="mailto:hartmans-ietf@mit.edu" title="MIT">S. Hartman</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4897">Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents</a>”, BCP&nbsp;97, RFC&nbsp;4897, June&nbsp;2007.
    14941579            </td>
    14951580         </tr>
    14961581         <tr>
    14971582            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC1945">[RFC1945]</b></td>
    1498             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="MIT, Laboratory for Computer Science">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, and <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="W3 Consortium, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">H. Nielsen</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1945, May&nbsp;1996.
     1583            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="MIT, Laboratory for Computer Science">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, and <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="W3 Consortium, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">H. Nielsen</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0</a>”, RFC&nbsp;1945, May&nbsp;1996.
    14991584            </td>
    15001585         </tr>
    15011586         <tr>
    15021587            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2049">[RFC2049]</b></td>
    1503             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ned@innosoft.com" title="Innosoft International, Inc.">Freed, N.</a> and <a href="mailto:nsb@nsb.fv.com" title="First Virtual Holdings">N. Borenstein</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2049">Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2049, November&nbsp;1996.
     1588            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ned@innosoft.com" title="Innosoft International, Inc.">Freed, N.</a> and <a href="mailto:nsb@nsb.fv.com" title="First Virtual Holdings">N. Borenstein</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2049">Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2049, November&nbsp;1996.
    15041589            </td>
    15051590         </tr>
    15061591         <tr>
    15071592            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2068">[RFC2068]</b></td>
    1508             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Digital Equipment Corporation, Western Research Laboratory">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Nielsen, H.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2068, January&nbsp;1997.
     1593            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Digital Equipment Corporation, Western Research Laboratory">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Nielsen, H.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2068, January&nbsp;1997.
    15091594            </td>
    15101595         </tr>
    15111596         <tr>
    15121597            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2076">[RFC2076]</b></td>
    1513             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:jpalme@dsv.su.se" title="Stockholm University/KTH">Palme, J.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2076">Common Internet Message Headers</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2076, February&nbsp;1997.
     1598            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:jpalme@dsv.su.se" title="Stockholm University/KTH">Palme, J.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2076">Common Internet Message Headers</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2076, February&nbsp;1997.
    15141599            </td>
    15151600         </tr>
    15161601         <tr>
    15171602            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2183">[RFC2183]</b></td>
    1518             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:rens@century.com" title="New Century Systems">Troost, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:sdorner@qualcomm.com" title="QUALCOMM Incorporated">Dorner, S.</a>, and <a href="mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu" title="Department of Computer Science">K. Moore</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2183">Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2183, August&nbsp;1997.
     1603            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:rens@century.com" title="New Century Systems">Troost, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:sdorner@qualcomm.com" title="QUALCOMM Incorporated">Dorner, S.</a>, and <a href="mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu" title="Department of Computer Science">K. Moore</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2183">Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2183, August&nbsp;1997.
    15191604            </td>
    15201605         </tr>
    15211606         <tr>
    15221607            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2277">[RFC2277]</b></td>
    1523             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no" title="UNINETT">Alvestrand, H.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2277">IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages</a>”, BCP&nbsp;18, RFC&nbsp;2277, January&nbsp;1998.
     1608            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no" title="UNINETT">Alvestrand, H.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2277">IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages</a>”, BCP&nbsp;18, RFC&nbsp;2277, January&nbsp;1998.
    15241609            </td>
    15251610         </tr>
    15261611         <tr>
    15271612            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2388">[RFC2388]</b></td>
    1528             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com" title="Xerox Palo Alto Research Center">Masinter, L.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2388">Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2388, August&nbsp;1998.
     1613            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com" title="Xerox Palo Alto Research Center">Masinter, L.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2388">Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2388, August&nbsp;1998.
    15291614            </td>
    15301615         </tr>
    15311616         <tr>
    15321617            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2557">[RFC2557]</b></td>
    1533             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:jpalme@dsv.su.se" title="Stockholm University and KTH">Palme, F.</a>, <a href="mailto:alexhop@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Hopmann, A.</a>, <a href="mailto:Shelness@lotus.com" title="Lotus Development Corporation">Shelness, N.</a>, and <a href="mailto:stef@nma.com">E. Stefferud</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557">MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2557, March&nbsp;1999.
     1618            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:jpalme@dsv.su.se" title="Stockholm University and KTH">Palme, F.</a>, <a href="mailto:alexhop@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Hopmann, A.</a>, <a href="mailto:Shelness@lotus.com" title="Lotus Development Corporation">Shelness, N.</a>, and <a href="mailto:stef@nma.com">E. Stefferud</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557">MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2557, March&nbsp;1999.
    15341619            </td>
    15351620         </tr>
    15361621         <tr>
    15371622            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2616">[RFC2616]</b></td>
    1538             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="W3C">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Compaq Computer Corporation">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com" title="Xerox Corporation">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="W3C">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2616, June&nbsp;1999.
     1623            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="W3C">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Compaq Computer Corporation">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com" title="Xerox Corporation">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="W3C">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2616, June&nbsp;1999.
    15391624            </td>
    15401625         </tr>
    15411626         <tr>
    15421627            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC3629">[RFC3629]</b></td>
    1543             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fyergeau@alis.com" title="Alis Technologies">Yergeau, F.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3629">UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646</a>”, RFC&nbsp;3629, STD&nbsp;63, November&nbsp;2003.
     1628            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fyergeau@alis.com" title="Alis Technologies">Yergeau, F.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3629">UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646</a>”, RFC&nbsp;3629, STD&nbsp;63, November&nbsp;2003.
    15441629            </td>
    15451630         </tr>
    15461631         <tr>
    15471632            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC3864">[RFC3864]</b></td>
    1548             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:GK-IETF@ninebynine.org" title="Nine by Nine">Klyne, G.</a>, <a href="mailto:mnot@pobox.com" title="BEA Systems">Nottingham, M.</a>, and <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="HP Labs">J. Mogul</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864">Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields</a>”, BCP&nbsp;90, RFC&nbsp;3864, September&nbsp;2004.
     1633            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:GK-IETF@ninebynine.org" title="Nine by Nine">Klyne, G.</a>, <a href="mailto:mnot@pobox.com" title="BEA Systems">Nottingham, M.</a>, and <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="HP Labs">J. Mogul</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864">Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields</a>”, BCP&nbsp;90, RFC&nbsp;3864, September&nbsp;2004.
    15491634            </td>
    15501635         </tr>
    15511636         <tr>
    15521637            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC4288">[RFC4288]</b></td>
    1553             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ned.freed@mrochek.com" title="Sun Microsystems">Freed, N.</a> and <a href="mailto:klensin+ietf@jck.com">J. Klensin</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288">Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures</a>”, BCP&nbsp;13, RFC&nbsp;4288, December&nbsp;2005.
     1638            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ned.freed@mrochek.com" title="Sun Microsystems">Freed, N.</a> and <a href="mailto:klensin+ietf@jck.com">J. Klensin</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288">Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures</a>”, BCP&nbsp;13, RFC&nbsp;4288, December&nbsp;2005.
    15541639            </td>
    15551640         </tr>
    15561641         <tr>
    15571642            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC5322">[RFC5322]</b></td>
    1558             <td class="top">Resnick, P., “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322">Internet Message Format</a>”, RFC&nbsp;5322, October&nbsp;2008.
     1643            <td class="top">Resnick, P., “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322">Internet Message Format</a>”, RFC&nbsp;5322, October&nbsp;2008.
    15591644            </td>
    15601645         </tr>
    15611646      </table>
    1562       <div class="avoidbreak">
    1563          <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1>
    1564          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Roy T. Fielding</span>
    1565                (editor)
    1566                <span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Fielding</span><span class="given-name">Roy T.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Day Software</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Newport Beach</span>, <span class="region">CA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">92660</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline tel">Phone: <a href="tel:+1-949-706-5300"><span class="value">+1-949-706-5300</span></a></span><span class="vcardline tel"><span class="type">Fax</span>: <a href="fax:+1-949-706-5305"><span class="value">+1-949-706-5305</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com"><span class="email">fielding@gbiv.com</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://roy.gbiv.com/" class="url">http://roy.gbiv.com/</a></span></address>
    1567          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Jim Gettys</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Gettys</span><span class="given-name">Jim</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">One Laptop per Child</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">21 Oak Knoll Road</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Carlisle</span>, <span class="region">MA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">01741</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org"><span class="email">jg@laptop.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://www.laptop.org/" class="url">http://www.laptop.org/</a></span></address>
    1568          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Jeffrey C. Mogul</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Mogul</span><span class="given-name">Jeffrey C.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Hewlett-Packard Company</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group</span><span class="street-address vcardline">1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Palo Alto</span>, <span class="region">CA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">94304</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org"><span class="email">JeffMogul@acm.org</span></a></span></address>
    1569          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Henrik Frystyk Nielsen</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Frystyk</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Microsoft Corporation</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">1 Microsoft Way</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Redmond</span>, <span class="region">WA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">98052</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com"><span class="email">henrikn@microsoft.com</span></a></span></address>
    1570          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Larry Masinter</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Masinter</span><span class="given-name">Larry</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Adobe Systems, Incorporated</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">345 Park Ave</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">San Jose</span>, <span class="region">CA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">95110</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org"><span class="email">LMM@acm.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://larry.masinter.net/" class="url">http://larry.masinter.net/</a></span></address>
    1571          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Paul J. Leach</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Leach</span><span class="given-name">Paul J.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Microsoft Corporation</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">1 Microsoft Way</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Redmond</span>, <span class="region">WA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">98052</span></span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com"><span class="email">paulle@microsoft.com</span></a></span></address>
    1572          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Tim Berners-Lee</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Berners-Lee</span><span class="given-name">Tim</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">World Wide Web Consortium</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory</span><span class="street-address vcardline">The Stata Center, Building 32</span><span class="street-address vcardline">32 Vassar Street</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Cambridge</span>, <span class="region">MA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">02139</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org"><span class="email">timbl@w3.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/" class="url">http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/</a></span></address>
    1573          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Yves Lafon</span>
    1574                (editor)
    1575                <span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Lafon</span><span class="given-name">Yves</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">World Wide Web Consortium</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">W3C / ERCIM</span><span class="street-address vcardline">2004, rte des Lucioles</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Sophia-Antipolis</span>, <span class="region">AM</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">06902</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">France</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org"><span class="email">ylafon@w3.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/" class="url">http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/</a></span></address>
    1576          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Julian F. Reschke</span>
    1577                (editor)
    1578                <span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Reschke</span><span class="given-name">Julian F.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">greenbytes GmbH</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">Hafenweg 16</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Muenster</span>, <span class="region">NW</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">48155</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">Germany</span></span><span class="vcardline tel">Phone: <a href="tel:+492512807760"><span class="value">+49 251 2807760</span></a></span><span class="vcardline tel"><span class="type">Fax</span>: <a href="fax:+492512807761"><span class="value">+49 251 2807761</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de"><span class="email">julian.reschke@greenbytes.de</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/" class="url">http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/</a></span></address>
    1579       </div>
    1580       <h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;<a id="differences.between.http.entities.and.rfc.2045.entities" href="#differences.between.http.entities.and.rfc.2045.entities">Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities</a></h1>
    1581       <p id="rfc.section.A.p.1">HTTP/1.1 uses many of the constructs defined for Internet Mail (<a href="#RFC5322" id="rfc.xref.RFC5322.1"><cite title="Internet Message Format">[RFC5322]</cite></a>) and the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME <a href="#RFC2045" id="rfc.xref.RFC2045.1"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies">[RFC2045]</cite></a>) to allow entities to be transmitted in an open variety of representations and with extensible mechanisms. However, RFC 2045
    1582          discusses mail, and HTTP has a few features that are different from those described in RFC 2045. These differences were carefully
    1583          chosen to optimize performance over binary connections, to allow greater freedom in the use of new media types, to make date
    1584          comparisons easier, and to acknowledge the practice of some early HTTP servers and clients.
    1585       </p>
    1586       <p id="rfc.section.A.p.2">This appendix describes specific areas where HTTP differs from RFC 2045. Proxies and gateways to strict MIME environments <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be aware of these differences and provide the appropriate conversions where necessary. Proxies and gateways from MIME environments
    1587          to HTTP also need to be aware of the differences because some conversions might be required.
    1588       </p>
    1589       <div id="rfc.iref.m.1"></div>
    1590       <div id="rfc.iref.h.10"></div>
    1591       <h2 id="rfc.section.A.1"><a href="#rfc.section.A.1">A.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="mime-version" href="#mime-version">MIME-Version</a></h2>
    1592       <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.1">HTTP is not a MIME-compliant protocol. However, HTTP/1.1 messages <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include a single MIME-Version general-header field to indicate what version of the MIME protocol was used to construct the
    1593          message. Use of the MIME-Version header field indicates that the message is in full compliance with the MIME protocol (as
    1594          defined in <a href="#RFC2045" id="rfc.xref.RFC2045.2"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies">[RFC2045]</cite></a>). Proxies/gateways are responsible for ensuring full compliance (where possible) when exporting HTTP messages to strict MIME
    1595          environments.
    1596       </p>
    1597       <div id="rfc.figure.u.39"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.40"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.41"></span>  <a href="#mime-version" class="smpl">MIME-Version</a>   = "MIME-Version" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#mime-version" class="smpl">MIME-Version-v</a>
     1647      <div id="differences.between.http.entities.and.rfc.2045.entities">
     1648         <h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#differences.between.http.entities.and.rfc.2045.entities">Differences Between HTTP Entities and RFC 2045 Entities</a></h1>
     1649         <p id="rfc.section.A.p.1">HTTP/1.1 uses many of the constructs defined for Internet Mail (<a href="#RFC5322" id="rfc.xref.RFC5322.1"><cite title="Internet Message Format">[RFC5322]</cite></a>) and the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME <a href="#RFC2045" id="rfc.xref.RFC2045.1"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies">[RFC2045]</cite></a>) to allow entities to be transmitted in an open variety of representations and with extensible mechanisms. However, RFC 2045
     1650            discusses mail, and HTTP has a few features that are different from those described in RFC 2045. These differences were carefully
     1651            chosen to optimize performance over binary connections, to allow greater freedom in the use of new media types, to make date
     1652            comparisons easier, and to acknowledge the practice of some early HTTP servers and clients.
     1653         </p>
     1654         <p id="rfc.section.A.p.2">This appendix describes specific areas where HTTP differs from RFC 2045. Proxies and gateways to strict MIME environments <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be aware of these differences and provide the appropriate conversions where necessary. Proxies and gateways from MIME environments
     1655            to HTTP also need to be aware of the differences because some conversions might be required.
     1656         </p>
     1657         <div id="mime-version">
     1658            <div id="rfc.iref.m.1"></div>
     1659            <div id="rfc.iref.h.10"></div>
     1660            <h2 id="rfc.section.A.1"><a href="#rfc.section.A.1">A.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#mime-version">MIME-Version</a></h2>
     1661            <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.1">HTTP is not a MIME-compliant protocol. However, HTTP/1.1 messages <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include a single MIME-Version general-header field to indicate what version of the MIME protocol was used to construct the
     1662               message. Use of the MIME-Version header field indicates that the message is in full compliance with the MIME protocol (as
     1663               defined in <a href="#RFC2045" id="rfc.xref.RFC2045.2"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies">[RFC2045]</cite></a>). Proxies/gateways are responsible for ensuring full compliance (where possible) when exporting HTTP messages to strict MIME
     1664               environments.
     1665            </p>
     1666            <div id="rfc.figure.u.39"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.40"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.41"></span>  <a href="#mime-version" class="smpl">MIME-Version</a>   = "MIME-Version" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> <a href="#mime-version" class="smpl">MIME-Version-v</a>
    15981667  <a href="#mime-version" class="smpl">MIME-Version-v</a> = 1*<a href="#notation" class="smpl">DIGIT</a> "." 1*<a href="#notation" class="smpl">DIGIT</a>
    15991668</pre><p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.3">MIME version "1.0" is the default for use in HTTP/1.1. However, HTTP/1.1 message parsing and semantics are defined by this
    1600          document and not the MIME specification.
    1601       </p>
    1602       <h2 id="rfc.section.A.2"><a href="#rfc.section.A.2">A.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="conversion.to.canonical.form" href="#conversion.to.canonical.form">Conversion to Canonical Form</a></h2>
    1603       <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.1"> <a href="#RFC2045" id="rfc.xref.RFC2045.3"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies">[RFC2045]</cite></a> requires that an Internet mail entity be converted to canonical form prior to being transferred, as described in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2049#section-4">Section 4</a> of <a href="#RFC2049" id="rfc.xref.RFC2049.1"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples">[RFC2049]</cite></a>. <a href="#canonicalization.and.text.defaults" title="Canonicalization and Text Defaults">Section&nbsp;3.3.1</a> of this document describes the forms allowed for subtypes of the "text" media type when transmitted over HTTP. <a href="#RFC2046" id="rfc.xref.RFC2046.3"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types">[RFC2046]</cite></a> requires that content with a type of "text" represent line breaks as CRLF and forbids the use of CR or LF outside of line
    1604          break sequences. HTTP allows CRLF, bare CR, and bare LF to indicate a line break within text content when a message is transmitted
    1605          over HTTP.
    1606       </p>
    1607       <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.2">Where it is possible, a proxy or gateway from HTTP to a strict MIME environment <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> translate all line breaks within the text media types described in <a href="#canonicalization.and.text.defaults" title="Canonicalization and Text Defaults">Section&nbsp;3.3.1</a> of this document to the RFC 2049 canonical form of CRLF. Note, however, that this might be complicated by the presence of
    1608          a Content-Encoding and by the fact that HTTP allows the use of some character sets which do not use octets 13 and 10 to represent
    1609          CR and LF, as is the case for some multi-byte character sets.
    1610       </p>
    1611       <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.3">Implementors should note that conversion will break any cryptographic checksums applied to the original content unless the
    1612          original content is already in canonical form. Therefore, the canonical form is recommended for any content that uses such
    1613          checksums in HTTP.
    1614       </p>
    1615       <h2 id="rfc.section.A.3"><a href="#rfc.section.A.3">A.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="introduction.of.content-encoding" href="#introduction.of.content-encoding">Introduction of Content-Encoding</a></h2>
    1616       <p id="rfc.section.A.3.p.1">RFC 2045 does not include any concept equivalent to HTTP/1.1's Content-Encoding header field. Since this acts as a modifier
    1617          on the media type, proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> either change the value of the Content-Type header field or decode the entity-body before forwarding the message. (Some experimental
    1618          applications of Content-Type for Internet mail have used a media-type parameter of ";conversions=&lt;content-coding&gt;" to perform
    1619          a function equivalent to Content-Encoding. However, this parameter is not part of RFC 2045).
    1620       </p>
    1621       <h2 id="rfc.section.A.4"><a href="#rfc.section.A.4">A.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="no.content-transfer-encoding" href="#no.content-transfer-encoding">No Content-Transfer-Encoding</a></h2>
    1622       <p id="rfc.section.A.4.p.1">HTTP does not use the Content-Transfer-Encoding field of RFC 2045. Proxies and gateways from MIME-compliant protocols to HTTP <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> remove any Content-Transfer-Encoding prior to delivering the response message to an HTTP client.
    1623       </p>
    1624       <p id="rfc.section.A.4.p.2">Proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols are responsible for ensuring that the message is in the correct
    1625          format and encoding for safe transport on that protocol, where "safe transport" is defined by the limitations of the protocol
    1626          being used. Such a proxy or gateway <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> label the data with an appropriate Content-Transfer-Encoding if doing so will improve the likelihood of safe transport over
    1627          the destination protocol.
    1628       </p>
    1629       <h2 id="rfc.section.A.5"><a href="#rfc.section.A.5">A.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="introduction.of.transfer-encoding" href="#introduction.of.transfer-encoding">Introduction of Transfer-Encoding</a></h2>
    1630       <p id="rfc.section.A.5.p.1">HTTP/1.1 introduces the Transfer-Encoding header field (<a href="p1-messaging.html#header.transfer-encoding" title="Transfer-Encoding">Section 8.7</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.16"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>). Proxies/gateways <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> remove any transfer-coding prior to forwarding a message via a MIME-compliant protocol.
    1631       </p>
    1632       <h2 id="rfc.section.A.6"><a href="#rfc.section.A.6">A.6</a>&nbsp;<a id="mhtml.line.length" href="#mhtml.line.length">MHTML and Line Length Limitations</a></h2>
    1633       <p id="rfc.section.A.6.p.1">HTTP implementations which share code with MHTML <a href="#RFC2557" id="rfc.xref.RFC2557.1"><cite title="MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)">[RFC2557]</cite></a> implementations need to be aware of MIME line length limitations. Since HTTP does not have this limitation, HTTP does not
    1634          fold long lines. MHTML messages being transported by HTTP follow all conventions of MHTML, including line length limitations
    1635          and folding, canonicalization, etc., since HTTP transports all message-bodies as payload (see <a href="#multipart.types" title="Multipart Types">Section&nbsp;3.3.2</a>) and does not interpret the content or any MIME header lines that might be contained therein.
    1636       </p>
    1637       <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;<a id="additional.features" href="#additional.features">Additional Features</a></h1>
    1638       <p id="rfc.section.B.p.1"> <a href="#RFC1945" id="rfc.xref.RFC1945.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0">[RFC1945]</cite></a> and <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.4"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a> document protocol elements used by some existing HTTP implementations, but not consistently and correctly across most HTTP/1.1
    1639          applications. Implementors are advised to be aware of these features, but cannot rely upon their presence in, or interoperability
    1640          with, other HTTP/1.1 applications. Some of these describe proposed experimental features, and some describe features that
    1641          experimental deployment found lacking that are now addressed in the base HTTP/1.1 specification.
    1642       </p>
    1643       <p id="rfc.section.B.p.2">A number of other headers, such as Content-Disposition and Title, from SMTP and MIME are also often implemented (see <a href="#RFC2076" id="rfc.xref.RFC2076.1"><cite title="Common Internet Message Headers">[RFC2076]</cite></a>).
    1644       </p>
    1645       <div id="rfc.iref.h.11"></div>
    1646       <div id="rfc.iref.c.7"></div>
    1647       <h2 id="rfc.section.B.1"><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="content-disposition" href="#content-disposition">Content-Disposition</a></h2>
    1648       <p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.1">The Content-Disposition response-header field has been proposed as a means for the origin server to suggest a default filename
    1649          if the user requests that the content is saved to a file. This usage is derived from the definition of Content-Disposition
    1650          in <a href="#RFC2183" id="rfc.xref.RFC2183.3"><cite title="Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field">[RFC2183]</cite></a>.
    1651       </p>
    1652       <div id="rfc.figure.u.40"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.42"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.43"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.44"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.45"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.46"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.47"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.48"></span>  <a href="#content-disposition" class="smpl">content-disposition</a> = "Content-Disposition" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>
     1669               document and not the MIME specification.
     1670            </p>
     1671         </div>
     1672         <div id="conversion.to.canonical.form">
     1673            <h2 id="rfc.section.A.2"><a href="#rfc.section.A.2">A.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#conversion.to.canonical.form">Conversion to Canonical Form</a></h2>
     1674            <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.1"><a href="#RFC2045" id="rfc.xref.RFC2045.3"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies">[RFC2045]</cite></a> requires that an Internet mail entity be converted to canonical form prior to being transferred, as described in <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2049#section-4">Section 4</a> of <a href="#RFC2049" id="rfc.xref.RFC2049.1"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples">[RFC2049]</cite></a>. <a href="#canonicalization.and.text.defaults" title="Canonicalization and Text Defaults">Section&nbsp;3.3.1</a> of this document describes the forms allowed for subtypes of the "text" media type when transmitted over HTTP. <a href="#RFC2046" id="rfc.xref.RFC2046.3"><cite title="Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types">[RFC2046]</cite></a> requires that content with a type of "text" represent line breaks as CRLF and forbids the use of CR or LF outside of line
     1675               break sequences. HTTP allows CRLF, bare CR, and bare LF to indicate a line break within text content when a message is transmitted
     1676               over HTTP.
     1677            </p>
     1678            <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.2">Where it is possible, a proxy or gateway from HTTP to a strict MIME environment <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> translate all line breaks within the text media types described in <a href="#canonicalization.and.text.defaults" title="Canonicalization and Text Defaults">Section&nbsp;3.3.1</a> of this document to the RFC 2049 canonical form of CRLF. Note, however, that this might be complicated by the presence of
     1679               a Content-Encoding and by the fact that HTTP allows the use of some character sets which do not use octets 13 and 10 to represent
     1680               CR and LF, as is the case for some multi-byte character sets.
     1681            </p>
     1682            <p id="rfc.section.A.2.p.3">Implementors should note that conversion will break any cryptographic checksums applied to the original content unless the
     1683               original content is already in canonical form. Therefore, the canonical form is recommended for any content that uses such
     1684               checksums in HTTP.
     1685            </p>
     1686         </div>
     1687         <div id="introduction.of.content-encoding">
     1688            <h2 id="rfc.section.A.3"><a href="#rfc.section.A.3">A.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#introduction.of.content-encoding">Introduction of Content-Encoding</a></h2>
     1689            <p id="rfc.section.A.3.p.1">RFC 2045 does not include any concept equivalent to HTTP/1.1's Content-Encoding header field. Since this acts as a modifier
     1690               on the media type, proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> either change the value of the Content-Type header field or decode the entity-body before forwarding the message. (Some experimental
     1691               applications of Content-Type for Internet mail have used a media-type parameter of ";conversions=&lt;content-coding&gt;" to perform
     1692               a function equivalent to Content-Encoding. However, this parameter is not part of RFC 2045).
     1693            </p>
     1694         </div>
     1695         <div id="no.content-transfer-encoding">
     1696            <h2 id="rfc.section.A.4"><a href="#rfc.section.A.4">A.4</a>&nbsp;<a href="#no.content-transfer-encoding">No Content-Transfer-Encoding</a></h2>
     1697            <p id="rfc.section.A.4.p.1">HTTP does not use the Content-Transfer-Encoding field of RFC 2045. Proxies and gateways from MIME-compliant protocols to HTTP <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> remove any Content-Transfer-Encoding prior to delivering the response message to an HTTP client.
     1698            </p>
     1699            <p id="rfc.section.A.4.p.2">Proxies and gateways from HTTP to MIME-compliant protocols are responsible for ensuring that the message is in the correct
     1700               format and encoding for safe transport on that protocol, where "safe transport" is defined by the limitations of the protocol
     1701               being used. Such a proxy or gateway <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> label the data with an appropriate Content-Transfer-Encoding if doing so will improve the likelihood of safe transport over
     1702               the destination protocol.
     1703            </p>
     1704         </div>
     1705         <div id="introduction.of.transfer-encoding">
     1706            <h2 id="rfc.section.A.5"><a href="#rfc.section.A.5">A.5</a>&nbsp;<a href="#introduction.of.transfer-encoding">Introduction of Transfer-Encoding</a></h2>
     1707            <p id="rfc.section.A.5.p.1">HTTP/1.1 introduces the Transfer-Encoding header field (<a href="p1-messaging.html#header.transfer-encoding" title="Transfer-Encoding">Section 8.7</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.16"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>). Proxies/gateways <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> remove any transfer-coding prior to forwarding a message via a MIME-compliant protocol.
     1708            </p>
     1709         </div>
     1710         <div id="mhtml.line.length">
     1711            <h2 id="rfc.section.A.6"><a href="#rfc.section.A.6">A.6</a>&nbsp;<a href="#mhtml.line.length">MHTML and Line Length Limitations</a></h2>
     1712            <p id="rfc.section.A.6.p.1">HTTP implementations which share code with MHTML <a href="#RFC2557" id="rfc.xref.RFC2557.1"><cite title="MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)">[RFC2557]</cite></a> implementations need to be aware of MIME line length limitations. Since HTTP does not have this limitation, HTTP does not
     1713               fold long lines. MHTML messages being transported by HTTP follow all conventions of MHTML, including line length limitations
     1714               and folding, canonicalization, etc., since HTTP transports all message-bodies as payload (see <a href="#multipart.types" title="Multipart Types">Section&nbsp;3.3.2</a>) and does not interpret the content or any MIME header lines that might be contained therein.
     1715            </p>
     1716         </div>
     1717      </div>
     1718      <div id="additional.features">
     1719         <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#additional.features">Additional Features</a></h1>
     1720         <p id="rfc.section.B.p.1"><a href="#RFC1945" id="rfc.xref.RFC1945.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0">[RFC1945]</cite></a> and <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.4"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a> document protocol elements used by some existing HTTP implementations, but not consistently and correctly across most HTTP/1.1
     1721            applications. Implementors are advised to be aware of these features, but cannot rely upon their presence in, or interoperability
     1722            with, other HTTP/1.1 applications. Some of these describe proposed experimental features, and some describe features that
     1723            experimental deployment found lacking that are now addressed in the base HTTP/1.1 specification.
     1724         </p>
     1725         <p id="rfc.section.B.p.2">A number of other headers, such as Content-Disposition and Title, from SMTP and MIME are also often implemented (see <a href="#RFC2076" id="rfc.xref.RFC2076.1"><cite title="Common Internet Message Headers">[RFC2076]</cite></a>).
     1726         </p>
     1727         <div id="content-disposition">
     1728            <div id="rfc.iref.h.11"></div>
     1729            <div id="rfc.iref.c.7"></div>
     1730            <h2 id="rfc.section.B.1"><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#content-disposition">Content-Disposition</a></h2>
     1731            <p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.1">The Content-Disposition response-header field has been proposed as a means for the origin server to suggest a default filename
     1732               if the user requests that the content is saved to a file. This usage is derived from the definition of Content-Disposition
     1733               in <a href="#RFC2183" id="rfc.xref.RFC2183.3"><cite title="Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field">[RFC2183]</cite></a>.
     1734            </p>
     1735            <div id="rfc.figure.u.40"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.42"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.43"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.44"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.45"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.46"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.47"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.48"></span>  <a href="#content-disposition" class="smpl">content-disposition</a> = "Content-Disposition" ":" <a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a>
    16531736                        <a href="#content-disposition" class="smpl">content-disposition-v</a>
    16541737  <a href="#content-disposition" class="smpl">content-disposition-v</a> = <a href="#content-disposition" class="smpl">disposition-type</a>
     
    16601743  <a href="#content-disposition" class="smpl">disp-extension-parm</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a> "=" ( <a href="#notation" class="smpl">token</a> / <a href="#notation" class="smpl">quoted-string</a> )
    16611744</pre><p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.3">An example is</p>
    1662       <div id="rfc.figure.u.41"></div><pre class="text">   Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="fname.ext"
     1745            <div id="rfc.figure.u.41"></div><pre class="text">   Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="fname.ext"
    16631746</pre><p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.5">The receiving user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> respect any directory path information present in the filename-parm parameter, which is the only parameter believed to apply
    1664          to HTTP implementations at this time. The filename <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be treated as a terminal component only.
    1665       </p>
    1666       <p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.6">If this header is used in a response with the application/octet-stream content-type, the implied suggestion is that the user
    1667          agent should not display the response, but directly enter a `save response as...' dialog.
    1668       </p>
    1669       <p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.7">See <a href="#content-disposition.issues" title="Content-Disposition Issues">Section&nbsp;8.2</a> for Content-Disposition security issues.
    1670       </p>
    1671       <h1 id="rfc.section.C"><a href="#rfc.section.C">C.</a>&nbsp;<a id="compatibility" href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a></h1>
    1672       <h2 id="rfc.section.C.1"><a href="#rfc.section.C.1">C.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.from.rfc.2068" href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></h2>
    1673       <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.1">Transfer-coding and message lengths all interact in ways that required fixing exactly when chunked encoding is used (to allow
    1674          for transfer encoding that may not be self delimiting); it was important to straighten out exactly how message lengths are
    1675          computed. (<a href="#entity.length" title="Entity Length">Section&nbsp;4.2.2</a>, see also <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.17"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a> and <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>).
    1676       </p>
    1677       <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.2">Charset wildcarding is introduced to avoid explosion of character set names in accept headers. (<a href="#header.accept-charset" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-charset.3" title="Accept-Charset">Section&nbsp;6.2</a>)
    1678       </p>
    1679       <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.3">Content-Base was deleted from the specification: it was not implemented widely, and there is no simple, safe way to introduce
    1680          it without a robust extension mechanism. In addition, it is used in a similar, but not identical fashion in MHTML <a href="#RFC2557" id="rfc.xref.RFC2557.2"><cite title="MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)">[RFC2557]</cite></a>.
    1681       </p>
    1682       <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.4">A content-coding of "identity" was introduced, to solve problems discovered in caching. (<a href="#content.codings" title="Content Codings">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>)
    1683       </p>
    1684       <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.5">Quality Values of zero should indicate that "I don't want something" to allow clients to refuse a representation. (<a href="#quality.values" title="Quality Values">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>)
    1685       </p>
    1686       <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.6">The Alternates<span id="rfc.iref.a.5"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.12"></span>, Content-Version<span id="rfc.iref.c.8"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.13"></span>, Derived-From<span id="rfc.iref.d.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.14"></span>, Link<span id="rfc.iref.l.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.15"></span>, URI<span id="rfc.iref.u.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.16"></span>, Public<span id="rfc.iref.p.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.17"></span> and Content-Base<span id="rfc.iref.c.9"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.18"></span> header fields were defined in previous versions of this specification, but not commonly implemented. See <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.6.2">Section 19.6.2</a> of <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.5"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>.
    1687       </p>
    1688       <h2 id="rfc.section.C.2"><a href="#rfc.section.C.2">C.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.from.rfc.2616" href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></h2>
    1689       <p id="rfc.section.C.2.p.1">Clarify contexts that charset is used in. (<a href="#character.sets" title="Character Sets">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>)
    1690       </p>
    1691       <p id="rfc.section.C.2.p.2">Remove reference to non-existant identity transfer-coding value tokens. (<a href="#no.content-transfer-encoding" title="No Content-Transfer-Encoding">Appendix&nbsp;A.4</a>)
    1692       </p>
    1693       <h1 id="rfc.section.D"><a href="#rfc.section.D">D.</a>&nbsp;<a id="change.log" href="#change.log">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></h1>
    1694       <h2 id="rfc.section.D.1"><a href="#rfc.section.D.1">D.1</a>&nbsp;Since RFC2616
    1695       </h2>
    1696       <p id="rfc.section.D.1.p.1">Extracted relevant partitions from <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
    1697       </p>
    1698       <h2 id="rfc.section.D.2"><a href="#rfc.section.D.2">D.2</a>&nbsp;Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-00
    1699       </h2>
    1700       <p id="rfc.section.D.2.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
    1701       <ul>
    1702          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/8">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/8</a>&gt;: "Media Type Registrations" (&lt;<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg</a>&gt;)
    1703          </li>
    1704          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/14">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/14</a>&gt;: "Clarification regarding quoting of charset values" (&lt;<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#charactersets">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#charactersets</a>&gt;)
    1705          </li>
    1706          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/16">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/16</a>&gt;: "Remove 'identity' token references" (&lt;<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#identity">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#identity</a>&gt;)
    1707          </li>
    1708          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/25">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/25</a>&gt;: "Accept-Encoding BNF"
    1709          </li>
    1710          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35</a>&gt;: "Normative and Informative references"
    1711          </li>
    1712          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/46">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/46</a>&gt;: "RFC1700 references"
    1713          </li>
    1714          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/55">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/55</a>&gt;: "Updating to RFC4288"
    1715          </li>
    1716          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/65">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/65</a>&gt;: "Informative references"
    1717          </li>
    1718          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/66">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/66</a>&gt;: "ISO-8859-1 Reference"
    1719          </li>
    1720          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68</a>&gt;: "Encoding References Normative"
    1721          </li>
    1722          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/86">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/86</a>&gt;: "Normative up-to-date references"
    1723          </li>
    1724       </ul>
    1725       <h2 id="rfc.section.D.3"><a href="#rfc.section.D.3">D.3</a>&nbsp;Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01
    1726       </h2>
    1727       <p id="rfc.section.D.3.p.1">Ongoing work on ABNF conversion (&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>&gt;):
    1728       </p>
    1729       <ul>
    1730          <li>Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from other parts of the specification.</li>
    1731       </ul>
    1732       <h2 id="rfc.section.D.4"><a href="#rfc.section.D.4">D.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.since.02" href="#changes.since.02">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02</a></h2>
    1733       <p id="rfc.section.D.4.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
    1734       <ul>
    1735          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67</a>&gt;: "Quoting Charsets"
    1736          </li>
    1737          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/105">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/105</a>&gt;: "Classification for Allow header"
    1738          </li>
    1739          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/115">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/115</a>&gt;: "missing default for qvalue in description of Accept-Encoding"
    1740          </li>
    1741       </ul>
    1742       <p id="rfc.section.D.4.p.2">Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Registration (&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40</a>&gt;):
    1743       </p>
    1744       <ul>
    1745          <li>Reference RFC 3984, and update header registrations for headers defined in this document.</li>
    1746       </ul>
    1747       <h2 id="rfc.section.D.5"><a href="#rfc.section.D.5">D.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.since.03" href="#changes.since.03">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-03</a></h2>
    1748       <p id="rfc.section.D.5.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
    1749       <ul>
    1750          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67</a>&gt;: "Quoting Charsets"
    1751          </li>
    1752          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/113">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/113</a>&gt;: "language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647"
    1753          </li>
    1754          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/121">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/121</a>&gt;: "RFC 1806 has been replaced by RFC2183"
    1755          </li>
    1756       </ul>
    1757       <p id="rfc.section.D.5.p.2">Other changes: </p>
    1758       <ul>
    1759          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68</a>&gt;: "Encoding References Normative" -- rephrase the annotation and reference <a href="#BCP97" id="rfc.xref.BCP97.4"><cite title="Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents">[BCP97]</cite></a>.
    1760          </li>
    1761       </ul>
    1762       <h2 id="rfc.section.D.6"><a href="#rfc.section.D.6">D.6</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.since.04" href="#changes.since.04">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-04</a></h2>
    1763       <p id="rfc.section.D.6.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
    1764       <ul>
    1765          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/132">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/132</a>&gt;: "RFC 2822 is updated by RFC 5322"
    1766          </li>
    1767       </ul>
    1768       <p id="rfc.section.D.6.p.2">Ongoing work on ABNF conversion (&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>&gt;):
    1769       </p>
    1770       <ul>
    1771          <li>Use "/" instead of "|" for alternatives.</li>
    1772          <li>Introduce new ABNF rules for "bad" whitespace ("BWS"), optional whitespace ("OWS") and required whitespace ("RWS").</li>
    1773          <li>Rewrite ABNFs to spell out whitespace rules, factor out header value format definitions.</li>
    1774       </ul>
     1747               to HTTP implementations at this time. The filename <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be treated as a terminal component only.
     1748            </p>
     1749            <p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.6">If this header is used in a response with the application/octet-stream content-type, the implied suggestion is that the user
     1750               agent should not display the response, but directly enter a `save response as...' dialog.
     1751            </p>
     1752            <p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.7">See <a href="#content-disposition.issues" title="Content-Disposition Issues">Section&nbsp;8.2</a> for Content-Disposition security issues.
     1753            </p>
     1754         </div>
     1755      </div>
     1756      <div id="compatibility">
     1757         <h1 id="rfc.section.C"><a href="#rfc.section.C">C.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a></h1>
     1758         <div id="changes.from.rfc.2068">
     1759            <h2 id="rfc.section.C.1"><a href="#rfc.section.C.1">C.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></h2>
     1760            <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.1">Transfer-coding and message lengths all interact in ways that required fixing exactly when chunked encoding is used (to allow
     1761               for transfer encoding that may not be self delimiting); it was important to straighten out exactly how message lengths are
     1762               computed. (<a href="#entity.length" title="Entity Length">Section&nbsp;4.2.2</a>, see also <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.17"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a> and <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>).
     1763            </p>
     1764            <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.2">Charset wildcarding is introduced to avoid explosion of character set names in accept headers. (<a href="#header.accept-charset" id="rfc.xref.header.accept-charset.3" title="Accept-Charset">Section&nbsp;6.2</a>)
     1765            </p>
     1766            <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.3">Content-Base was deleted from the specification: it was not implemented widely, and there is no simple, safe way to introduce
     1767               it without a robust extension mechanism. In addition, it is used in a similar, but not identical fashion in MHTML <a href="#RFC2557" id="rfc.xref.RFC2557.2"><cite title="MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)">[RFC2557]</cite></a>.
     1768            </p>
     1769            <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.4">A content-coding of "identity" was introduced, to solve problems discovered in caching. (<a href="#content.codings" title="Content Codings">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>)
     1770            </p>
     1771            <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.5">Quality Values of zero should indicate that "I don't want something" to allow clients to refuse a representation. (<a href="#quality.values" title="Quality Values">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>)
     1772            </p>
     1773            <p id="rfc.section.C.1.p.6">The Alternates<span id="rfc.iref.a.5"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.12"></span>, Content-Version<span id="rfc.iref.c.8"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.13"></span>, Derived-From<span id="rfc.iref.d.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.14"></span>, Link<span id="rfc.iref.l.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.15"></span>, URI<span id="rfc.iref.u.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.16"></span>, Public<span id="rfc.iref.p.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.17"></span> and Content-Base<span id="rfc.iref.c.9"></span><span id="rfc.iref.h.18"></span> header fields were defined in previous versions of this specification, but not commonly implemented. See <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.6.2">Section 19.6.2</a> of <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.5"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>.
     1774            </p>
     1775         </div>
     1776         <div id="changes.from.rfc.2616">
     1777            <h2 id="rfc.section.C.2"><a href="#rfc.section.C.2">C.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></h2>
     1778            <p id="rfc.section.C.2.p.1">Clarify contexts that charset is used in. (<a href="#character.sets" title="Character Sets">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>)
     1779            </p>
     1780            <p id="rfc.section.C.2.p.2">Remove reference to non-existant identity transfer-coding value tokens. (<a href="#no.content-transfer-encoding" title="No Content-Transfer-Encoding">Appendix&nbsp;A.4</a>)
     1781            </p>
     1782         </div>
     1783      </div>
     1784      <div id="change.log">
     1785         <h1 id="rfc.section.D"><a href="#rfc.section.D">D.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#change.log">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></h1>
     1786         <div>
     1787            <h2 id="rfc.section.D.1"><a href="#rfc.section.D.1">D.1</a>&nbsp;Since RFC2616
     1788            </h2>
     1789            <p id="rfc.section.D.1.p.1">Extracted relevant partitions from <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
     1790            </p>
     1791         </div>
     1792         <div>
     1793            <h2 id="rfc.section.D.2"><a href="#rfc.section.D.2">D.2</a>&nbsp;Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-00
     1794            </h2>
     1795            <p id="rfc.section.D.2.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
     1796            <ul>
     1797               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/8">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/8</a>&gt;: "Media Type Registrations" (&lt;<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#media-reg</a>&gt;)
     1798               </li>
     1799               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/14">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/14</a>&gt;: "Clarification regarding quoting of charset values" (&lt;<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#charactersets">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#charactersets</a>&gt;)
     1800               </li>
     1801               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/16">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/16</a>&gt;: "Remove 'identity' token references" (&lt;<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#identity">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata#identity</a>&gt;)
     1802               </li>
     1803               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/25">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/25</a>&gt;: "Accept-Encoding BNF"
     1804               </li>
     1805               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35</a>&gt;: "Normative and Informative references"
     1806               </li>
     1807               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/46">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/46</a>&gt;: "RFC1700 references"
     1808               </li>
     1809               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/55">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/55</a>&gt;: "Updating to RFC4288"
     1810               </li>
     1811               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/65">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/65</a>&gt;: "Informative references"
     1812               </li>
     1813               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/66">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/66</a>&gt;: "ISO-8859-1 Reference"
     1814               </li>
     1815               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68</a>&gt;: "Encoding References Normative"
     1816               </li>
     1817               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/86">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/86</a>&gt;: "Normative up-to-date references"
     1818               </li>
     1819            </ul>
     1820         </div>
     1821         <div>
     1822            <h2 id="rfc.section.D.3"><a href="#rfc.section.D.3">D.3</a>&nbsp;Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01
     1823            </h2>
     1824            <p id="rfc.section.D.3.p.1">Ongoing work on ABNF conversion (&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>&gt;):
     1825            </p>
     1826            <ul>
     1827               <li>Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from other parts of the specification.</li>
     1828            </ul>
     1829         </div>
     1830         <div id="changes.since.02">
     1831            <h2 id="rfc.section.D.4"><a href="#rfc.section.D.4">D.4</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.02">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-02</a></h2>
     1832            <p id="rfc.section.D.4.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
     1833            <ul>
     1834               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67</a>&gt;: "Quoting Charsets"
     1835               </li>
     1836               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/105">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/105</a>&gt;: "Classification for Allow header"
     1837               </li>
     1838               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/115">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/115</a>&gt;: "missing default for qvalue in description of Accept-Encoding"
     1839               </li>
     1840            </ul>
     1841            <p id="rfc.section.D.4.p.2">Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Registration (&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40</a>&gt;):
     1842            </p>
     1843            <ul>
     1844               <li>Reference RFC 3984, and update header registrations for headers defined in this document.</li>
     1845            </ul>
     1846         </div>
     1847         <div id="changes.since.03">
     1848            <h2 id="rfc.section.D.5"><a href="#rfc.section.D.5">D.5</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.03">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-03</a></h2>
     1849            <p id="rfc.section.D.5.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
     1850            <ul>
     1851               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/67</a>&gt;: "Quoting Charsets"
     1852               </li>
     1853               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/113">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/113</a>&gt;: "language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647"
     1854               </li>
     1855               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/121">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/121</a>&gt;: "RFC 1806 has been replaced by RFC2183"
     1856               </li>
     1857            </ul>
     1858            <p id="rfc.section.D.5.p.2">Other changes: </p>
     1859            <ul>
     1860               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/68</a>&gt;: "Encoding References Normative" -- rephrase the annotation and reference <a href="#BCP97" id="rfc.xref.BCP97.4"><cite title="Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents">[BCP97]</cite></a>.
     1861               </li>
     1862            </ul>
     1863         </div>
     1864         <div id="changes.since.04">
     1865            <h2 id="rfc.section.D.6"><a href="#rfc.section.D.6">D.6</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.04">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-04</a></h2>
     1866            <p id="rfc.section.D.6.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
     1867            <ul>
     1868               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/132">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/132</a>&gt;: "RFC 2822 is updated by RFC 5322"
     1869               </li>
     1870            </ul>
     1871            <p id="rfc.section.D.6.p.2">Ongoing work on ABNF conversion (&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>&gt;):
     1872            </p>
     1873            <ul>
     1874               <li>Use "/" instead of "|" for alternatives.</li>
     1875               <li>Introduce new ABNF rules for "bad" whitespace ("BWS"), optional whitespace ("OWS") and required whitespace ("RWS").</li>
     1876               <li>Rewrite ABNFs to spell out whitespace rules, factor out header value format definitions.</li>
     1877            </ul>
     1878         </div>
     1879      </div>
    17751880      <h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1>
    17761881      <p class="noprint"><a href="#rfc.index.A">A</a> <a href="#rfc.index.B">B</a> <a href="#rfc.index.C">C</a> <a href="#rfc.index.D">D</a> <a href="#rfc.index.G">G</a> <a href="#rfc.index.H">H</a> <a href="#rfc.index.I">I</a> <a href="#rfc.index.L">L</a> <a href="#rfc.index.M">M</a> <a href="#rfc.index.P">P</a> <a href="#rfc.index.R">R</a> <a href="#rfc.index.U">U</a>
     
    19812086         </ul>
    19822087      </div>
    1983       <h1><a id="rfc.copyright" href="#rfc.copyright">Full Copyright Statement</a></h1>
    1984       <p>Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).</p>
    1985       <p>This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the
    1986          authors retain all their rights.
    1987       </p>
    1988       <p>This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
    1989          HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
    1990          DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
    1991          WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    1992       </p>
    1993       <h1><a id="rfc.ipr" href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property</a></h1>
    1994       <p>The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might
    1995          be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any
    1996          license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to
    1997          identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and
    1998          BCP 79.
    1999       </p>
    2000       <p>Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result
    2001          of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users
    2002          of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.
    2003       </p>
    2004       <p>The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
    2005          rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF
    2006          at <a href="mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org">ietf-ipr@ietf.org</a>.
    2007       </p>
     2088      <div class="avoidbreak">
     2089         <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1>
     2090         <p><b>Roy T. Fielding</b>
     2091            (editor)
     2092            <br>Day Software<br>23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280<br>Newport Beach, CA&nbsp;92660<br>USA<br>Phone: <a href="tel:+1-949-706-5300">+1-949-706-5300</a><br>Fax: <a href="fax:+1-949-706-5305">+1-949-706-5305</a><br>EMail: <a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com">fielding@gbiv.com</a><br>URI: <a href="http://roy.gbiv.com/">http://roy.gbiv.com/</a></p>
     2093         <p><b>Jim Gettys</b><br>One Laptop per Child<br>21 Oak Knoll Road<br>Carlisle, MA&nbsp;01741<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org">jg@laptop.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://www.laptop.org/">http://www.laptop.org/</a></p>
     2094         <p><b>Jeffrey C. Mogul</b><br>Hewlett-Packard Company<br>HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group<br>1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177<br>Palo Alto, CA&nbsp;94304<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org">JeffMogul@acm.org</a></p>
     2095         <p><b>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen</b><br>Microsoft Corporation<br>1 Microsoft Way<br>Redmond, WA&nbsp;98052<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com">henrikn@microsoft.com</a></p>
     2096         <p><b>Larry Masinter</b><br>Adobe Systems, Incorporated<br>345 Park Ave<br>San Jose, CA&nbsp;95110<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org">LMM@acm.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://larry.masinter.net/">http://larry.masinter.net/</a></p>
     2097         <p><b>Paul J. Leach</b><br>Microsoft Corporation<br>1 Microsoft Way<br>Redmond, WA&nbsp;98052<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com">paulle@microsoft.com</a></p>
     2098         <p><b>Tim Berners-Lee</b><br>World Wide Web Consortium<br>MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory<br>The Stata Center, Building 32<br>32 Vassar Street<br>Cambridge, MA&nbsp;02139<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org">timbl@w3.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/">http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/</a></p>
     2099         <p><b>Yves Lafon</b>
     2100            (editor)
     2101            <br>World Wide Web Consortium<br>W3C / ERCIM<br>2004, rte des Lucioles<br>Sophia-Antipolis, AM&nbsp;06902<br>France<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org">ylafon@w3.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/">http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/</a></p>
     2102         <p><b>Julian F. Reschke</b>
     2103            (editor)
     2104            <br>greenbytes GmbH<br>Hafenweg 16<br>Muenster, NW&nbsp;48155<br>Germany<br>Phone: <a href="tel:+492512807760">+49 251 2807760</a><br>Fax: <a href="fax:+492512807761">+49 251 2807761</a><br>EMail: <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de">julian.reschke@greenbytes.de</a><br>URI: <a href="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/">http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/</a></p>
     2105      </div>
     2106      <div id="rfc.copyright">
     2107         <h1><a href="#rfc.copyright">Full Copyright Statement</a></h1>
     2108         <p>Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).</p>
     2109         <p>This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the
     2110            authors retain all their rights.
     2111         </p>
     2112         <p>This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
     2113            HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
     2114            DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
     2115            WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
     2116         </p>
     2117      </div>
     2118      <div id="rfc.ipr">
     2119         <h1><a href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property</a></h1>
     2120         <p>The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might
     2121            be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any
     2122            license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to
     2123            identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and
     2124            BCP 79.
     2125         </p>
     2126         <p>Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result
     2127            of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users
     2128            of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.
     2129         </p>
     2130         <p>The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
     2131            rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF
     2132            at <a href="mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org">ietf-ipr@ietf.org</a>.
     2133         </p>
     2134      </div>
    20082135   </body>
    20092136</html>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.