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

Re: Prefer Draft Feedback

From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:46:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfTW=QhdyVGARtpFw6jC-k7-CGVLx-1oScHU9MUAtirGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Moore, Jonathan (CIM)" <Jonathan_Moore@comcast.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Updated version based on the latest round of feedback...

  http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-08.txt

- James

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2011-12-13 20:08, James Snell wrote:
>>
>> Yes, they are invalid. I need to point that out. They are equivalent
>> to the first but shouldn't ever be done.
>> ...
>
>
> Not sure that phrasing it this way is a good idea.
>
> If they are invalid, they can't be equivalent.
>
> If you want to make them equivalent, then you have to require recipients to
> process them.
>
> (my preference would be to leave them invalid)
>
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 02:47:12 GMT

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