W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:19:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUo2XXjZdNrWJU7NHLKvqUvr0KHrs00u9wktBReRgMhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 28 June 2013 21:04, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Not necessary for protocol interoperability, but there are strong reasons
> why it ought to be done that way.  I agree that there are unpleasant results
> if the sequence isn't there -- I just question whether that makes it a
> protocol MUST rather than a best practice.

I agree with this.  I also don't think that it will be possible in
some cases to provide this guarantee.  In many cases it will be
certainly be infeasible.
Received on Saturday, 29 June 2013 20:20:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC