W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88]

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 13:18:24 +0200
Message-Id: <345F1C03-5B03-4A8A-8F7D-34812FC542C9@gbiv.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Jun 8, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> I.e., allow entity bodes on 205?

A recipient has to parse for it anyway.  A sender has no motivation
to send it anyway.  That's why it is not an interoperability  
requirement.

> *shrug* In the scheme of things, it's not that important, I  
> suppose, since they're not widely used. However, it seems you'd  
> have the same philosophical debates either way -- "what is the  
> meaning of an entity on a 205 response" vs. "what is the meaning of  
> the entity headers on a 205 response"?

I meant the philosophy of having a "MUST include" of something
that, by its very nature, cannot be "included".

The original is correct in stating a negative requirement
(sent response must not contain an entity).  I don't think
we are going to improve on it until we remove all of the parsing
requirements from the status code definitions (leaving only one
section in which all message-parsing requirements are defined),
and I'll never be able to get to that if every single issue
generates a long pointless thread on the mailing list.
Let's just close this one as "won't fix".

....Roy
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 11:18:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT