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


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