- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:20:13 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19.10.2010 10:11, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > 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. > ... OK. But I still hear an "If" here. My understanding is that Chromium is experimenting with even treating duplicate lengths as error; I think we should wait for more results, and at least one additional UA follow that. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 09:20:50 UTC