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 18:28:16 +0100
Message-ID: <4B992830.90102@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 18:22, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 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?

It depends.

If there's no interop today, and the existing implementations are 
conforming with respect to RFC 2616, we *usually* don't break them - 
there would need to be very good reasons to do so, such as security 
related ones.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 17:28:58 GMT

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