- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:21:52 +1000
- To: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 UTC