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: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:21:35 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1003121421m3040fd9eh55d65d2ea509cc8c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:52:42 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> I can't say that I agree with that reasoning. IMHO interoperability
>> going forward is more important than not declaring currently
>> conforming implementations non-conforming. If anyone gets really sad
>> for loosing their conforming badge, I can send them some home made
>> cookies ;)
>
> Yes please! :-)

If updating the spec to use MUST requirements here makes you sad,
please do send me the address of the Opera HQ and I guess I'll send
the cookies. I do reserve the right to blog about an apparent change
in Operas attitude towards making specs have strict requirements
though ;)

All under the condition that Julian changes the spec of course.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 22:22:32 GMT

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