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

Re: User interface requirements for redirecting to unsafe methods

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:12:08 +0200
Message-ID: <5086B3C8.2020609@gmx.de>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-10-23 16:51, Barry Leiba wrote:
>     The following points were not addressed to my satisfaction. While
>     some individuals replied, so far as I can tell, the WG itself has
>     never officially tracked this feedback nor has it given an official
>     response.
>
>     You can find the post I'm replying to in the archives here:
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010JanMar/0170.html>
>     As far as I can tell, the end of the discussion on this was the
>     following post from me:
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010JanMar/0177.html>.
>
>
> I agree with Maciej that (1) he has raised a valid set of issues and (2)
> they have not been adequately addressed.
>
> In fact, I also agree with his assessment, and think the "must" and
> "must not" statements should be changed to "should" and "should not",
> though that is separate from my concern that his issues have not been
> adequately addressed.  I'd at least like to hear someone explain *why*
> the "must -> should" change would be bad or wrong, and see support for
> that explanation.
> ...

The WG already decided to change the requirements to simple prose that 
just explains the issue. That being said, I'm not sure how changing a 
MUST (which isn't in the spec anyway anymore) to a SHOULD would actually 
help addressing Maciej's concern.

Best regards,
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 15:12:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2012 15:12:51 GMT