RE: Issues: UNCONDITIONAL_COMPLIANCE = Proposed wording

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (frystyk@w3.org)
Date: Wed, Mar 11 1998


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980311162416.0354fd80@localhost>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:24:16 -0500
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Issues: UNCONDITIONAL_COMPLIANCE = Proposed wording

At 10:54 3/11/98 -0800, Yaron Goland wrote:
>Why restrict to unconditional compliance? If someone puts in a mandatory
>requirement for HTTP/1.1 compliance and the server is only conditional
>compliant it has to fail the request? Compliant is compliant is compliant.
>Conditional or otherwise. You wana distinguish between conditional and
>unconditional? Put in a switch. Hell, not every spec even uses a
>conditional/unconditional distinction.

I can see that something was cut out of the replacement text. It should
have been:

	An HTTP server MUST NOT return a 2xx status-code without being
 	unconditionally compliant with and obeying all mandatory extension
 	declaration(s) in a mandatory request. A mandatory HTTP
	request invalidates cached entries as described in [7],
	section 13.10.

Anyway, I would tend to agree - if an extension has multiple levels of
compliance but doesn't have a mechanism of finding out internally which
level is in use then I think we can say that the extension has a problem.

Thanks,

Henrik
--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk