- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:28:15 +1100
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1; if we're going to allow duplicates to be ignored, we should be explicit about it, not rely on a SHOULD. On 18/10/2010, at 6:29 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:25:35AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 18.10.2010 05:17, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> ... >>> I tend to agree, SHOULD vs. MUST here isn't worth a tremendous amount of >>> time. However, if we get agreement among UA implementers on MUST, that >>> does seem the way to go. >>> >>> Julian, have you put in any text about duplicate content-length values yet? >>> ... >> >> No. We wouldn't need it if we stick with SHOULD, right? > > The fact that that sometimes happens might cause some browsers to loosen > the check due to negative user feedback. Specifically focusing the control > on different values will help developers satisfy users demand and security > controls. > > Regards, > Willy > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 06:28:51 UTC