jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
5.2. HTTP does not place a predefined limit on the length of each field <del> line, field value, or on the length of the header or trailer section as a whole, as described in conformance.  Various ad hoc limitations on individual lengths are found in practice, often depending on the </del> <ins> line, field value, or on the length of a header or trailer section as a whole, as described in conformance.  Various ad hoc limitations on individual lengths are found in practice, often depending on the </ins> specific field's semantics. A server that receives a request header field line, field value, or
willing to accept trailer fields in the forwarded response.  Note that the presence of "trailers" does not mean that the client(s) will process any particular trailer field in the response; only that the <del> trailer section as a whole will not be dropped by any of the clients. </del> <ins> trailer section(s) will not be dropped by any of the clients. </ins> Because of the potential for trailer fields to be discarded in transit, a server SHOULD NOT generate trailer fields that it believes
5.6.3. <ins> Like header fields, trailer fields with the same name are processed in the order received; multiple trailer field lines with the same name have the equivalent semantics as appending the multiple values as a list of members, even when the field lines are received in separate trailer sections.  Trailer fields that might be generated more than once during a message MUST be defined as a list value even if each member value is only processed once per field line received. Trailer fields are expected (but not required) to be processed one trailer section at a time.  That is, for each trailer section received, a recipient that is looking for trailer fields will parse the received section into fields, invoke any associated processing for those fields at that point in the message processing, and then append those fields to the set of trailer fields received for the overall message. This behavior allows for iterative processing of trailer fields that contain incremental signatures or mid-stream status information, and fields that might refer to each other's values within the same section.  However, there is no guarantee that trailer sections won't shift in relation to the message body stream, or won't be recombined (or dropped) in transit, so trailer fields that refer to data outside the present trailer section need to use self-descriptive references (i.e., refer to the data by name, ordinal position, or an octet range) rather than assume it is the data most recently received. Likewise, at the end of a message, a recipient MAY treat the entire set of received trailer fields as one data structure to be considered as the message concludes.  Additional processing expectations, if any, can be defined within the field specification for a field intended for use in trailers. 5.6.4. </ins> The "Trailer" header field provides a list of field names that the sender anticipates sending as trailer fields within that message. This allows a recipient to prepare for receipt of the indicated
Except when excluded below, a recipient cache or origin server MUST evaluate received request preconditions after it has successfully <del> performed its normal request checks and just before it would perform the action associated with the request method.  A server MUST ignore all received preconditions if its response to the same request without those conditions would have been a status code other than a </del> <ins> performed its normal request checks and just before it would process the request body (if any) or perform the action associated with the request method.  A server MUST ignore all received preconditions if its response to the same request without those conditions, prior to processing the request body, would have been a status code other than a </ins> or <del> .  In other words, redirects and failures take precedence over the evaluation of preconditions in conditional requests. </del> <ins> .  In other words, redirects and failures that can be detected before significant processing occurs take precedence over the evaluation of preconditions. </ins> A server that is not the origin server for the target resource and cannot act as a cache for requests on the target resource MUST NOT
doing so (e.g., qvalues on and similar request header fields), that mechanism MAY be used to <del> select preferred responses; of the remainder, the most recent response (as determined by the </del> <ins> select a preferred response.  If such a mechanism is not available, or leads to equally preferred responses, the most recent response (as determined by the </ins> header field) is used, as per constructing.responses.from.caches. <del> Note that in practice, some resources might send the Vary header field on responses inconsistently.  When a cache has multiple responses for a target URI, and one or more omits the Vary header field, it SHOULD use the most recent non-empty value available to select an appropriate response for the request. </del> <ins> Some resources mistakenly omit the Vary header field from their default response (i.e., the one sent when no more preferable response is available), selecting it for requests to that resource even when more preferable responses are available.  When a cache has multiple responses for a target URI and one or more omits the Vary header field, it SHOULD use the most recent (see age.calculations) valid Vary field value available to select an appropriate response for the request. </ins> If no selected response is available, the cache cannot satisfy the presented request.  Typically, it is forwarded to the origin server
When there is more than one value present for a given directive (e.g., two <del> header fields, multiple Cache-Control: max-age directives), the directive's value is considered invalid.  Caches are encouraged to consider responses that have invalid freshness information to be stale. </del> <ins> header field lines or multiple Cache-Control: max-age directives), either the first occurrence should be used, or the response should be considered stale.  If directives conflict (e.g., both max-age and no- cache are present), the most restrictive directive should be honored. Caches are encouraged to consider responses that have invalid freshness information (e.g., a max-age directive with non-integer content) to be stale. </ins> 4.2.2.
according to the calculations in expiration.model. A cache MUST NOT generate a stale response if it is prohibited by an <del> explicit in-protocol directive (e.g., by a "no-store" or "no-cache" cache directive, a "must-revalidate" cache-response-directive, or an </del> <ins> explicit in-protocol directive (e.g., by a "no-cache" cache directive, a "must-revalidate" cache-response-directive, or an </ins> applicable "s-maxage" or "proxy-revalidate" cache-response-directive; see cache-response-directive).
intervening caches are required to invalidate stored responses to keep their contents up to date. <del> means that the cache will either remove all stored responses whose target URI matches the given URI, or will mark them as "invalid" and in need of a mandatory validation before they can be sent in response to a subsequent request. Note that this does not guarantee that all appropriate responses are invalidated globally; a state-changing request would only invalidate responses in the caches it travels through. </del> A cache MUST invalidate the target URI (target.resource) and the URI(s) in the
receives a non-error response to a request with a method whose safety is unknown. <del> Here, a "non-error response" is one with a </del> <ins> means that the cache will either remove all stored responses whose target URI matches the given URI, or will mark them as "invalid" and in need of a mandatory validation before they can be sent in response to a subsequent request. A "non-error response" is one with a </ins> or status code. <ins> Note that this does not guarantee that all appropriate responses are invalidated globally; a state-changing request would only invalidate responses in the caches it travels through. </ins> 5. This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP fields related
age.calculations. The Age field value is a non-negative integer, representing time in <del> seconds (see delta-seconds).  A cache SHOULD consider a response to be stale if an Age field is present and its value is invalid (i.e., contains a list or something other than a non-negative integer). </del> <ins> seconds (see delta-seconds). Although it is defined as a singleton header field, a cache encountering a message with multiple Age field lines SHOULD use the first field line, discarding subsequent ones. If the field value (after discarding additional lines, as per above) is invalid (e.g., it contains a list or something other than a non- negative integer), a cache SHOULD consider the response to be stale. </ins> The presence of an Age header field implies that the response was not generated or validated by the origin server for this request.
authentication credentials, or deliberately misleading duplicate header fields that would impact request processing. <del> A recipient MAY combine multiple field lines with the same field name into one field line, without changing the semantics of the message, by appending each subsequent field line value to the initial field line value in order, separated by a comma and </del> <ins> A recipient MAY combine multiple field lines within a field section that have the same field name into one field line, without changing the semantics of the message, by appending each subsequent field line value to the initial field line value in order, separated by a comma and </ins> (optional whitespace).  For consistency, use comma SP.
Obsolete formats: <del> HTTP-date is case sensitive.  A sender MUST NOT generate additional whitespace in an HTTP-date beyond that specifically included as SP in the grammar.  The semantics of </del> <ins> HTTP-date is case sensitive.  Note that Caching relaxes this for cache recipients. A sender MUST NOT generate additional whitespace in an HTTP-date beyond that specifically included as SP in the grammar.  The semantics of </ins> ,
Also, note that unsafe requests might invalidate already-stored responses; see invalidation. <ins> A response that is stored or storable can be used to satisfy multiple requests, provided that it is allowed to reuse that response for the requests in question.  This enables caches to "collapse" multiple incoming requests into a single forward request upon a cache miss, thereby reducing load on the origin server and network.  However, note that if the response returned is not able to be used for some or all of the collapsed requests, additional latency might be introduced, because they will need to be forwarded to be satisfied. </ins> When more than one suitable response is stored, a cache MUST use the most recent one (as determined by the
The requirements in this specification do not necessarily apply to how applications use data after it is retrieved from a HTTP cache. <del> That is, a history mechanism can display a previous representation even if it has expired, and an application can use cached data in other ways beyond its freshness lifetime. This does not prohibit the application from taking HTTP caching into account; for example, a history mechanism might tell the user that a view is stale, or it might honor cache directives (e.g., Cache- Control: no-store). </del> <ins> For example, a history mechanism can display a previous representation even if it has expired, and an application can use cached data in other ways beyond its freshness lifetime. This specification does not prohibit the application from taking HTTP caching into account; for example, a history mechanism might tell the user that a view is stale, or it might honor cache directives (e.g., Cache-Control: no-store).  In particular, when an application caches data and does not make this apparent to or easily controllable by the user, it is strongly encouraged to honour basic control mechanisms like Cache-Control: no-store, as they indicate the resource's intent regarding caching. </ins> 7.
15.3. <ins> HTTP's most widely used extensibility point is the definition of new header and trailer fields. New fields can be defined such that, when they are understood by a recipient, they override or enhance the interpretation of previously defined fields, define preconditions on request evaluation, or refine the meaning of responses. However, defining a field doesn't guarantee its deployment or recognition by recipients.  Most fields are designed with the expectation that a recipient can safely ignore (but forward downstream) any field not recognized.  In other cases, the sender's ability to understand a given field might be indicated by its prior communication, perhaps in the protocol version or fields that it sent in prior messages, or its use of a specific media type.  Likewise, direct inspection of support might be possible through an OPTIONS request or by interacting with a defined well-known URI RFC8615 if such inspection is defined along with the field being introduced. </ins> 15.3.1. The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry" defines
15.3.2. <del> There is no limit on the introduction of new field names, each presumably defining new semantics. New fields can be defined such that, when they are understood by a recipient, they might override or enhance the interpretation of previously defined fields, define preconditions on request evaluation, or refine the meaning of responses. </del> Authors of specifications defining new fields are advised to choose a short but descriptive field name.  Short names avoid needless data transmission; descriptive names avoid confusion and "squatting" on
5.2. <del> One of the functions of message framing is to assure that messages are . A message is considered complete when all of the octets indicated by its framing are available.  Note that, when no explicit framing is used, a response message that is ended by the transport connection's close is considered complete even though it might be indistinguishable from an incomplete response, unless a transport- level error indicates that it is not complete. </del> <ins> Message framing indicates how each message begins and ends, such that each message can be distinguished from other messages or noise on the same connection.  Each major version of HTTP defines its own framing mechanism. HTTP/0.9 and early deployments of HTTP/1.0 used closure of the underlying connection to end each response.  For backwards compatibility, this implicit framing is also allowed in HTTP/1.1. However, implicit framing can fail to distinguish an incomplete response if the connection closes early.  For that reason, almost all modern implementations use explicit framing in the form of length- delimited sequences of message data. A message is considered when all of the octets indicated by its framing are available.  Note that, when no explicit framing is used, a response message that is ended by the underlying connection's close is considered complete even though it might be indistinguishable from an incomplete response, unless a transport-level error indicates that it is not complete. </ins> 5.3.
response with a payload containing one or more partial representations that correspond to the satisfiable ranges requested. <ins> The above does not imply that a server will send all requested ranges.  In some cases, it may only be possible (or efficient) to send a portion of the requested ranges first, while expecting the client to re-request the remaining portions later if they are still desired (see status.206). </ins> If all of the preconditions are true, the server supports the Range header field for the target resource, and the specified range(s) are invalid or unsatisfiable, the server SHOULD send a
. <ins> A server that supports range requests (range.requests) will usually attempt to satisfy all of the requested ranges, since sending less data will likely result in another client request for the remainder. However, a server might want to send only a subset of the data requested for reasons of its own, such as temporary unavailability, cache efficiency, load balancing, etc.  Since a 206 response is self- descriptive, the client can still understand a response that only partially satisfies its range request. A client MUST inspect a 206 response's and field(s) to determine what parts are enclosed and whether additional requests are needed. </ins> When a 206 response is generated, the server MUST generate the following header fields, in addition to those required in the subsections below, if the field would have been sent in a
class of status code indicates an interim response for communicating connection status or request progress prior to completing the <del> requested action and sending a final response.  1xx responses are terminated by the end of the header section.  Since HTTP/1.0 did not define any 1xx status codes, a server MUST NOT send a 1xx response to an HTTP/1.0 client. </del> <ins> requested action and sending a final response.  Since HTTP/1.0 did not define any 1xx status codes, a server MUST NOT send a 1xx response to an HTTP/1.0 client. A 1xx response is terminated by the end of the header section because it cannot contain a message body or trailers. </ins> A client MUST be able to parse one or more 1xx responses received prior to a final response, even if the client does not expect one.  A
same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would have a <del> value equal to its Last-Modified time.  The arbitrary 60-second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified values are generated from different clocks or at somewhat different times during the preparation of the response.  An implementation MAY use a value larger than 60 seconds, if it is believed that 60 seconds is too short. </del> <ins> value equal to its Last-Modified time. </ins> 7.9.3.
5.1. <ins> Message framing indicates how each message begins and ends, such that each message can be distinguished from other messages or noise on the same connection.  Each major version of HTTP defines its own framing mechanism. HTTP/0.9 and early deployments of HTTP/1.0 used closure of the underlying connection to end each response.  For backwards compatibility, this implicit framing is also allowed in HTTP/1.1. However, implicit framing can fail to distinguish an incomplete response if the connection closes early.  For that reason, almost all modern implementations use explicit framing in the form of length- delimited sequences of message data. A message is considered when all of the octets indicated by its framing are available.  Note that, when no explicit framing is used, a response message that is ended by the underlying connection's close is considered complete even though it might be indistinguishable from an incomplete response, unless a transport-level error indicates that it is not complete. 5.2. </ins> Every HTTP message has a protocol version.  Depending on the version in use, it might be carried in the message explicitly, or it might be inferred by the connection that the message is carried on.  A message
protocol within a protocol element that requires sending a minor version. <del> 5.2. Message framing indicates how each message begins and ends, such that each message can be distinguished from other messages or noise on the same connection.  Each major version of HTTP defines its own framing mechanism. HTTP/0.9 and early deployments of HTTP/1.0 used closure of the underlying connection to end each response.  For backwards compatibility, this implicit framing is also allowed in HTTP/1.1. However, implicit framing can fail to distinguish an incomplete response if the connection closes early.  For that reason, almost all modern implementations use explicit framing in the form of length- delimited sequences of message data. A message is considered when all of the octets indicated by its framing are available.  Note that, when no explicit framing is used, a response message that is ended by the underlying connection's close is considered complete even though it might be indistinguishable from an incomplete response, unless a transport-level error indicates that it is not complete. </del> 5.3. HTTP messages use key/value pairs to convey data about the message,
5.1. <ins> Every HTTP message has a protocol version.  Depending on the version in use, it might be carried in the message explicitly, or it might be inferred by the connection that the message is carried on.  A message can change versions as it passes through intermediaries, because the semantics of a HTTP message are independent of its version. </ins> While HTTP's core semantics don't change between protocol versions, the expression of them "on the wire" can change, and so the HTTP version number changes when incompatible changes are made to the wire
3.2. <ins> Caches are required to update a stored response's header fields from another (typically newer) response in several situations; for example, see combining.responses, freshening.responses and head.effects. When doing so, the cache MUST add each header field in the provided response to the stored response, replacing field values that are already present, with the following exceptions: In some cases, caches (especially in user agents) store processed representations of the received response, rather than the response itself, and updating header fields that affect that processing can result in inconsistent behavior and security issues.  Caches in this situation MAY omit these header fields from updating stored representations on an exceptional basis, but SHOULD limit such omission to those fields necessary to assure integrity of the stored representation. For example, a browser might store a response's body after removing content-codings, thereby making its metadata inaccurate.  Updating that stored metadata with a different Content-Encoding header field would be problematic.  Likewise, a browser might store a post-parse tree representation of HTML, rather than the body received in the response; updating the Content-Type header field would not be workable in this case, because any assumptions about the format made in parsing would now be invalid. Furthermore, some fields are automatically processed and removed by the HTTP implementation; for example, the Content-Range header field. Implementations MAY automatically omit such header fields from updates, even when the processing does not actually occur. Note that the Content-* prefix is not a signal that a header field is omitted from update; it is a convention for MIME header fields, not HTTP. 3.3. </ins> If the request method is GET, the response status code is , and the entire response header section has been received, a cache