W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: 12, 14.43: resource arguments and conneg

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 13:47:14 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199606031147.NAA27463@wsooti06.win.tue.nl>
To: burchard@cs.princeton.edu
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, masinter@parc.xerox.com, jg@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, fielding@ics.uci.edu
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/727
Paul Burchard:
>koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman) writes:
>> Give me one month, and I can write a nice 10-page section,
>> which people might might understand, that exactly
>> defines how `understood variation' works.
>Yikes...then how can you be so confident that this will be  
>interoperably implemented?

The requirements in 13.5 that tell caches when (not) to return
responses with a Vary header field are clear, so I don't expect a
divergence handling of _incoming_ Vary fields by cache

The problems I detected are mostly in the section 12 text that tells
servers what to put in an outgoing Vary field.  Though this text is
subtly wrong, I expect that this wrongness will almost never lead to
someone putting less headers in a Vary field that there should be to
make caches handle the response correctly.  I expect that most people
will intuitively make the right choice, especially if they have also
read 13.5.


>Paul Burchard	<burchard@cs.princeton.edu>

Received on Monday, 3 June 1996 04:50:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC