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

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:28:36 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimjA7SJtaQotOyhBmsMMnxm40iZwOzdWnQFiYNG@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On Sep 20, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> The latter changes don't work.  "it" is ambiguous, and
> >> "SHOULD NOT be used" is a new requirement that no current browser
> >> supports AFAIK.
> >
> > Yes, but the feedback from them about making this change is positive,
> overall.
>
> ...
>
> >> I don't think we can require anything more than it SHOULD be
> >> indicated as an error.
> >
> > I read the discussion so far as leaning towards getting rid of that
> requirement.
>
> Excuse me, but ... WTF?
>
> So two browser developers insist that they can't possibly indicate
> an error message, but they are willing to refuse to use the response
> at all?  Implying, of course, that they will indicate an error message,
> since otherwise the user has no idea what happened to their request
> (or inline image/object/stylesheet/script).
>
> I'd really like to encourage that we stop asking people's opinions
> and instead ask them what they are going to implement (or already
> have implemented).  Everyone has an opinion and I'd prefer that
> thoughtful answers be provided instead of knee-jerk slogans.
>

>From the brief discussion amongst the Chrome network developers, we plan to
discard the response and display an error.


>
> ....Roy
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 05:29:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:25 GMT