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

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:11:15 -0700
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <489F6FC2-9F72-4FEE-A434-02A70663B964@apple.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

I agree with that as well. If there are known exceptions to the rule that we wish to have interoperably implemented, they should be documented. That's so even if the requirement is SHOULD-level, potentially allowing further exceptions.

Regards,
Maciej

On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> +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 08:11:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:30 GMT