- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:32:26 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Mark Nottingham wrote: >p2 5.1.1 requires that an unrecognised expectation be replied to with a 417 Expectation Failed. > >In my testing, it's fairly common for servers to ignore an unregistered expectation (e.g., "foo"). > >Given how many problems we already have with Expect, should we consider >disallowing further extensions here, and removing this requirement? I would like to see a proper rewrite of the specification text here. In general, I would disagree with changes as you propose; for instance, re- moving the requirement entirely would seem to make it difficult to un- derstand what the original idea behind `Expect` was, and it would seem that pointing out interoperability problems with respect to `Expect` is sufficient to discourage extensions; why should we forbid future experi- ments that depend on `Expect` beyond that? -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 23:32:53 UTC