- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:17:27 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: frystyk@w3.org (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: > >At 20:28 3/26/98 +0100, Koen Holtman wrote: > >>I just realised that you also may want to forbid man: headers in 304 >>responses altogether as they may overwrite an already-existing man >>header in the cached entry. > >But 304 already SHOULD NOT contain any new header fields - exactly for the >sake of consistency. Why is this different for Man than for any other header? Hmm, I think you are right. Protocol extensions would be free to ignore the SHOULD NOT though, so maybe an extra word of warning is in order. > >Henrik Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 1998 12:30:43 UTC