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

Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:16:48 -0700
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <75760F6E-AE0B-41D1-9DD6-E17ECA795E80@gbiv.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

On Mar 16, 2012, at 1:53 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Is p4 optional or not (for servers, clients, etc.)? I think it is, and so it should be explicitly marked as such.

Nope, conditional requests have always been a SHOULD implement
because of the benefits to the rest of Internet.

....Roy

Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 22:17:16 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Julian Reschke: "Re: Last Call: <draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt> (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)) to Experimental RFC"
Previous message: Mark Nottingham: "WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support"
In reply to: Mark Nottingham: "WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support"
Next in thread: Mark Nottingham: "Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support"
Reply: Mark Nottingham: "Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support"
Reply: Mark Nottingham: "Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT