W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: #186: Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:21:52 +1000
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <C53E7A36-FEA2-47F7-93C7-615BF364ACF1@mnot.net>
To: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Marking this for incorporation in -15; the SHOULD review is a separate item.

Cheers,



On 27/05/2011, at 3:16 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 
> On 24/05/2011, at 4:39 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that this removes the "conditionally compliant" level of conformance; i.e., SHOULD is no longer overloaded, and returns to is original RFC2119 semantic of identifying requirements that can be violated for reasonable reasons (see also<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/271>, which proposes that we try to enumerate those reasons wherever possible).
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's a fairly big change. I'd argue that "conditional compliance" doesn't promote interop and should be dropped. Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> It *is* a big change, and getting all the changes done right will be quite some work.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, but I think it's worth doing. I'm willing to do the bulk of the review and suggestions, if people are willing to review them.
>> 
>> Will do :-)
> 
> Also, I think the tasks are separable -- i.e., we can change the "conditional compliance" language and then do a separate audit of the SHOULDs to make sure they're sensible / contextualised.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 01:22:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:41 GMT