- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 05:01:42 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 3.2 Warnings
> Most Warning-related text moved to Warning header definition
> Downgraded most requirements for sending and displaying Warning to SHOULD
It is good to keep some of them as MUST,
214 Transformation Applied is still a MUST which is a good thing.
However 110 Response is stale should be back to MUST instead of SHOULD,
otherwise the client doesn't have a way to differentiate the response.
(but I know that IRL it's almost never done).
One thing would be to require a MUST only when the expiration time is
_not_ an heuristic one (as in this case, the staleness property is already
heuristic).
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 09:01:51 UTC