- From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:46:42 -0800
- 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 UTC