From: Robert <bobx@...>
Date: 2004-02-22T11:14:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Puzzling...

Robert Klemme wrote:
> "Charles Comstock" <cc1@cec.wustl.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:c18g6f$maq$2@newsreader.wustl.edu...
> 
>>Charles Comstock wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jon A. Lambert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ruby Tuesday" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>BTW this is incorrect.
>>>>>print "Content-type: text/html \n\n\n"
>>>>>
>>>>>It should be
>>>>>print "Content-type: text/html \r\n\r\n"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is that a Ruby thing? That certainly isn't how Perl does it. Perl does
>>>>the following:
>>>>
>>>>print "Content-type: text/html\n\n";
>>>>
>>>>Which I believe is the standard header.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm pretty sure under the rfs your supposed to do \r\n\r\n, but I think
>>>most servers are setup to just look for a single blank line before
>>>actual content, and so they generally just look for a \n and thus the
>>>\n\n works.  But technically it's supposed to be \r\n\r\n I think.
>>>
>>>Charles Comstock
>>
>>Oops dunno what I was typing, I meant RFC, not rfs,
>>
>>Charles Comstock
> 
> 
> Nevertheless you are right.  The RFC requires \r\n sequences as line
> termination in an HTTP header.  Never mind what "Perl does", it's better to
> just comply to the standard - "Better safe than sorry." :-)
> 
> See
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec4.html#sec4.1
> 
> Regards
> 
>     robert
> 
I would agree except every tutorial I have ever seen on it uses \n\n and 
not the other.