Adrien de Croy wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Adrien de Croy wrote: >>> I guess the answer lies in the wording around the directives >>> themselves. Some of them it's pretty clear are intended only for >>> request messages, some for response messages. Some are less clear, >>> and the syntax for some differs between request and response (e.g >>> no-cache). >> >> In case you didn't notice: those have been separated into distinct >> subsections since draft 05. > you referring to the HTTPbis work? I've been referring to RFC2616. > ... Yes. So how is RFC2616 relevant anymore, if we have already done what you asked for? Me confused... Best regards, JulianReceived on Monday, 25 May 2009 11:43:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT