- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:44:29 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:23:45 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Additionally, the working group may produce one or more test suites >>> for HTTP conformance, if there is sufficient interest. >> I actually think this and maybe two interoperable implementations in >> popular browsers of the whole specification should be a requirement. >> Probably also for the server side of things. Otherwise the real issues >> probably never get fixed and deferred with arguments like: "We'll just >> wait until they get their act together..." > > I think I strongly disagree. Requiring that things are indeed completely > implemented will either result in lots of stuff being taken out, or the > spec never be done. If that's indeed the result something is clearly wrong with the current specification. What's the use of a specification which authors and implementors can't actually rely on? > So what *are* the real issues, then? Have they been raised over here? I raised one (which was quickly rejected even though multiple people indicated it could not be implemented...), but there are others. Such as redirection of a POST as a GET etc. I'm not aware of a full list though, but such a list would probably become apparent once you start doing actual testing. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 14:44:36 UTC