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

Re: ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:47:03 +0000
Message-Id: <35BE38C7.25A6AA68@agranat.com>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/267
> At 19:20 7/28/98 +0000, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> >I believe that the MUST should stand; making it a SHOULD renders the 
> >Expect feature almost useless.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen replied:

> I agree, but isn't this in fact the case in practice? Wouldn't it be
> better to let Mandatory handle this as it has a stronger mechanism 
> for enforcing client based requirements based on the M- method name
> prefix?

... but have you tested what happens with old servers (and CGI programs) if
you send them new methods?  At least in the case of CGIs they often ignore
the method - in short, you have exactly the same situation faced by Expect,
but more complex.  Don't get me wrong - I like the Mandatory mechanism
because it is so much more descriptive, but I don't think that it is any
better from a backward compatibility point of view (and cannot be made any

Scott Lawrence            Consulting Engineer        <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.   Embedded Web Technology     http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 1998 13:49:24 UTC

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