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

Re: [draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06] rev

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:56:46 +0000 (UTC)
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908241856180.13844@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:43:26 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> I.e., define the semantics of rev in case it's received, but prohibit
> >> sending it?
> >
> > Right, exactly.
> 
> This works for me too, though I hope it does not mean browsers suddenly 
> have to start supporting something browsers never really properly 
> implemented in the first place. (I think "rev" fails the rough consensus 
> and running code mantra, but I might be missing something here.)

Yeah it may be that the semantics are "it does nothing", in which case I'd 
be fine with just not mentioning it at all. I haven't done any testing.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 18:56:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT