W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE: Use of "Client" in 14.4

From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:24:13 -0600
Message-ID: <459D707D.8010202@rowe-clan.net>
To: "Travis Snoozy (Volt)" <a-travis@microsoft.com>
CC: Paul Leach <paulle@windows.microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Travis Snoozy (Volt) wrote:

> ... but that is then inconsiderate of anyone who is reading the spec from
> scratch, is it not? And since this *does* center around a MUST-level
> requirement, I for one think it's very important to fix. Even though the
> likely intent is clear to anyone who thinks about it long enough, what the
> spec *says* will cause clients that do the sane thing to be non-conformant.

I read a MUST-NOT, not a MUST.  If there is no way to infer the user-agent's
preference, do not present an Accept-Language header.  This statement applies,
in equal part, to an endpoint client agent as well as any middle layer agent.

> On the other hand, I don't think that anyone really cares if their
> client/server is "HTTP/1.1 conformant" at this point.

I would choose words more wisely when emailing from a work account.
Developers at Apache, Mozilla, certainly even at Microsoft do pay close
attention to the specification.  What they choose to do from that point
forward is their own foolishness.

The risk is that conformant++ behavior often becomes --conformant in actual
practice, witness the attempt to be more forgiving of spaces between header
fields and the separating colon of header strings, and the resulting HTTP
request spoofing vulnerabilities between varying vendor agent implementations.
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2007 21:24:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:41 UTC