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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:13:50 +1100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3DB21C7E-F40F-4573-8078-57C410E3F833@mnot.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
FYI, tests online at:
  http://www.mnot.net:8000/
Source at:
  http://gist.github.com/330963

My take on this is that it's an area that's important for interoperability that is the responsibility of HTTP, but was omitted from the original specification. We can consider making a clarification here, and if it breaks an implementation or two, we can note that potential incompatibility (just as 2616 did in a few cases).

Cheers,


On 12/03/2010, at 4:52 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 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 ;)
> 
> / Jonas
> 


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 13 March 2010 00:14:32 GMT

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