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

Re: Straw-man charter

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:18:35 +0100
Message-ID: <45ED864B.70601@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
>> I think I strongly disagree. Requiring that things are indeed 
>> completely implemented will either result in lots of stuff being taken 
>> out, or the spec never be done.
> 
> If that's indeed the result something is clearly wrong with the current 
> specification. What's the use of a specification which authors and 
> implementors can't actually rely on?

That's the debate about whether to spec what people *should* do as 
opposed to what they do today. I disagree that it's useless to specify 
things even though existing implementations may get it wrong.

There's a problem if the spec defines something as mandatory, and nobody 
does it. Or if the spec says something that can't be implemented. Things 
like these should be discussed, agreed.

>> So what *are* the real issues, then? Have they been raised over here?
> 
> I raised one (which was quickly rejected even though multiple people 
> indicated it could not be implemented...), but there are others. Such as 

That would be 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/thread.html#msg224>, 
right? I wouldn't say it was rejected altogether, it's just that there 
was no agreement that Content-Location can be removed completely.

> redirection of a POST as a GET etc. I'm not aware of a full list though, 
> but such a list would probably become apparent once you start doing 
> actual testing.

Is that about status 302 vs 303? Is there an open issue around here?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 15:19:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT