W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Cache Control must > MUST

From: <rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:50:11 EST
Message-Id: <199805261550.LAA28984@rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/137
I suppose this falls under issue "h1" (MUST-MAY-SHOULD):

In section 14.9, the first sentence after the first note says:

Cache directives must be passed through a proxy or gateway...

I think the "must" ought to be "MUST".

Richard L. Gray
will code for chocolate

Referer had no value.  Add a value, or
remove the header altogether, and their server worked okay.

I was all set to go off in high dudgeon about how the specification
*says* that headers that aren't understood should be ignored.  What it
says (7.1 Entity Header Fields) is that "unrecognized header fields
SHOULD be ignored...."

The question I have is, what does "unrecognized" mean?  Does it just
mean a header whose name is unfamiliar, or does it also mean a
recognized header for which the value is in some way invalid (such as
my example above)?  I realize that "be liberal in what you accept" is
on my side, here, but it's not clear that the *letter* of the
specification is also on my side.

Dave Kristol
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 1998 08:52:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC