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

Re: RFC 2616, partitioned

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:19:36 +0100
To: Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20071022101936.GA4145@mail.shareable.org>

Robert Sayre wrote:
> The only downside I see to this partitioning is that the header 
> definitions are split up. I found that listing in 2616 pretty 
> convenient, but I suppose documents like the header registry are a 
> better reference these days.

I think it's fine if the header _definitions_ are split among their
appropriate documents, but an index of all of them together, referring
to their definitions in other documents, would be a handy reference.

Another very handy reference would be a quick list of "to claim
HTTP/1.1 compliance, a client/server/proxy implementation MUST (very
brief): ...", and in that list refer to the individual documents.

I've seen too many little servers reporting themselves as HTTP/1.1
which don't even try to implement half of the MUSTs in RFC2616.

Another, IMHO, would be "As of 2007, some of the widespread
implementation bugs and workarounds needed for practical internet
interoperability are..."  It's outside the scope of HTTP's definition,
but it would be pretty handy to _somwehere_ consolidate the knowledge
that different implementors have gathered.

-- Jamie
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 10:32:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT