W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: #307 (untangle Cache-Control ABNF)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:12:57 +1000
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5CEB6240-B7AE-407A-91A1-EE6EACBF91D0@mnot.net>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

On 19/06/2012, at 12:06 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> What I've been trying to ask, in so many ways, is why THIS case differs
>> from all of the other cases. 
> If you name a couple, I assume Julian will happily explain where the
> difference is, if there is any; he in fact asked for evidence that the
> drafts are currently inconsistent in this regard, as I understood it,
> anyway. (I'd offer some if I understood your concern well enough...)

I did, way back when...

On 14/06/2012, at 1:23 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I think it's going too far; in similar situations we haven't laid down such draconian rules.
> E.g., we don't place ANY conformance requirements on new headers; it's all advice: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#considerations.for.creating.header.fields>
> Likewise for auth schemes: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p7-auth.html#considerations.for.new.authentication.schemes>
> We don't place any conformance requirements on media type parameters either: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#media.types>; we only note that they can be transmitted in either form. Why not use similar language here?

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 02:13:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:02 UTC