I've tried both using \n\n and \r\n\r\n on Perl and Ruby as well. Both
resulted the same.

When I tried it with Mozilla, the "Content-type: text/plain" works. Do you
guys think it is the IE things? Thanks

"Robert" <bobx / linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:KtidnX_WrYgkkqXd4p2dnA / adelphia.com...
> 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.