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

Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:39:31 +0100
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7cn8k35m5gtg4rksi30k2pjl9utmaeu00n@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Jamie Lokier wrote:
>_Every_ HTTP implementation dealing with the web in any significant
>way must implement it, even those which handle Set-Cookie2 as well, so
>it's silly to make it a MUST NOT condition in the spec.

If you think so, the best course of action would be to open a new issue
specifically on Set-Cookie. I would disagree with your logic though, we
also don't allow, say, sending a body in HEAD responses even though that
too is something many implementations have to cope with.

>In my proposal it's not outlawed.  It SHOULD reject the message as
>malformed, which makes sense; it's not a MUST.

Recommendations one way or another are already implied in the semantics
of status codes and generic good behavior recommendations and common
sense; a "SHOULD" goes considerably beyond that, and I would not say the
reasons I gave are good enough to violate such a "SHOULD".
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 16:39:43 GMT

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