W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:36:27 -0700
Message-Id: <64359F48-3D78-41A0-8AEF-F659749A1381@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

On Apr 3, 2008, at 8:08 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>  
> wrote:
>>  However relying on non-compliance of proxies in this case would be
>> foolhardy.  Changing the semantics of Expects I don't think is  
>> that great an
>> option either (actually I'd vote to deprecate it along with 305  
>> Use Proxy)
>
> +1

That train has long since left the station.

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1998MayAug/ 
0165.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1998MayAug/ 
0192.html

Version numbers in protocols are a good thing.  Stupid IETF politics
and FUD regarding the so called "risk" of changing the version number
(when an incompatible change is made to the protocol) are the only
reasons they don't work, and every time they end up biting us.

....Roy
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 03:37:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:46 GMT