- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:36:27 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com
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 UTC