W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-ext@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: comments on draft-ietf-http-ext-mandatory-00.txt

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:17:27 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199804221617.SAA03649@wsooti20.win.tue.nl>
To: frystyk@w3.org (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen:
>
>At 20:28 3/26/98 +0100, Koen Holtman wrote:
>
>>I just realised that you also may want to forbid man: headers in 304
>>responses altogether as they may overwrite an already-existing man
>>header in the cached entry.
>
>But 304 already SHOULD NOT contain any new header fields - exactly for the
>sake of consistency. Why is this different for Man than for any other header?

Hmm, I think you are right.  Protocol extensions would be free to
ignore the SHOULD NOT though, so maybe an extra word of warning is in
order.

>
>Henrik

Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 1998 12:30:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 1 July 2021 15:49:08 UTC