W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: Location Proposals

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 21:37:50 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199509041937.VAA08182@wswiop05.win.tue.nl>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy Fielding:
>
>>But I must object to your use of `should'.  This is the http-wg list,
>>so I expect everyone to be using the language of the draft HTTP spec.
>>The spec uses `should == must', as far as I can tell.  (Lots of RFC's
>>may not, but that is another matter.)
>
>No it doesn't.  Must is a requirement for compliance, should is
>a recommendation.

I kind of expected you to say that.  Let me try to fix my own sloppy
use of terminology:

I read the `should' in the spec to a bit weaker than `must', but not
much weaker.  On a scale of recommendedness:

  must > should > strongly recommended > recommended > may

So I think that the `should' in the spec implies far less optionalness
than Shel's `should' seems to do.  In particular, I read the spec's
`should' to take precedence over all efficiency considerations:
gaining efficiency (saving bandwidth) is not not a good enough reason
to violate a `should'.

This is why I complain about caching `shoulds' that introduce very
inefficient worst cases (like having to clear the entire cache memory
if the cache comes up after having been down).

> ....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA

Koen.
Received on Monday, 4 September 1995 12:42:22 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:31 EDT