W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Via MUST discussion

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:26:35 +0100
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <r259k35me2lbu36j12rknlphnvt7o3hgbl@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>On ons, 2007-11-14 at 14:29 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>> > On ons, 2007-11-14 at 11:25 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> > 
>> >> OTOH, making this requirement a SHOULD is probably closer to  
>> >> reflecting current practice, especially if we were to have some  
>> >> explanatory text about it.
>> > 
>> > +1
>> > 
>> > There is no reason to have MUST level requirements without any
>> > noticeable impact on the operations of the protocol. And Via is
>> > certainly in that category.
>> 
>> I would argue we should open a new issue for this one, i5 
>> (<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i5>) was about 
>> the inconsistency between SHOULD (14.38) and MUST (14.45). We fixed that 
>> IMHO correctly (using consistently the stronger requirement).
>> 
>> So if we want to relax the MUST level requirement, that should be 
>> treated separately...
>
>Yes, it's two separate issues, even if the solution is mutually
>exclusive in terms of text change relateive to 2616.

Could you post a NEW ISSUE mail on this then?

Thanks,
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 20:26:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:11 GMT