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

Re: p6: Returning the freshest response

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:32:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUCK7b18-W_g8cfuU551pSHtiQfmveXmp-dbwfAYd6JhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 29 March 2013 15:11, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> The SHOULD is qualified sufficiently that I believe that a MUST is
>> more appropriate.
>
> The requirement is of the form "SHOULD... unless...", with the clause:
>
>> , unless the variance cannot be crossed or the origin server has been deliberately configured to prevent cache transparency.
>
> so I think this one is OK.

I'm not familiar with the "SHOULD...unless" construct.
"MUST...unless" is better typically, unless there are other,
unspecified reasons that this directive can be ignored.
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 22:32:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 29 March 2013 22:32:51 UTC