W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Request for feedback on HTTP Location header syntax + semantics, Re: Issues 43 and 185, was: Issue 43 (combining fragments)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:48:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4B9910C2.5060706@gmx.de>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 11.03.2010 16:38, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
>> Should we recommend the behavior we see implemented (SHOULD? MUST?)? Note
>> that this would make current implementations of Opera and Safari
>> non-compliant.
>
> Is there a reason to use SHOULD rather than MUST? If not I'd say use MUST.

Usually we don't add normative requirements on top of RFC 2616, unless 
we're clearly fixing a bug (which is not the case here), or are 
confident that we're just writing down what everybody is doing anyway.

 From that point of view, even a SHOULD may be too strong.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 15:49:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:17 GMT