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: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:22:10 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1003110922t79dbd2a9v3079ba81e602206@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.

Why? Isn't the point of a spec to encourage interoperable behavior?

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 17:23:01 GMT

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