- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 17:36:19 -0500
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-ext@w3.org
At 14:06 1/22/98 PST, Jeffrey Mogul wrote: > Where 'Scooby: dooby' was defined by RFC4000 and the 'doo' > extention was defined by RFC4100. What I want to express is that > you should reject the request unless you understand RFC4100, not > that you understand some older version of the Scooby header. So I > would add: > > Man: http://ietf.org/rfcs/rfc4100.txt This would only be necessary if the Scooby header had been registered in IANA multiple times as different versions with different semantics. I guess this could happen - the redifinition of the Accept-Encoding header field could count as different versions, for example. Otherwise, Man: Scoopy would indeed point to the header field registered by IANA and nothing else. >Somewhat verbose, alas, but a little more compact than a URL, >and perhaps more robust. URIs should always be made as persistent as the objects they point to, which is independent of the syntax. >Note that this is still not quite enough, unless we make a >rule that this means "unconditional compliance" to the referenced >RFC. Which is not such a big deal; if RFC4100 has some SHOULDs >as well as MUSTs, then one can write RFC4101, describing a >particular profile of requirements from RFC4100, and then use >urn:ietf:RFC:4101 instead. Yes indeed - I would imagine that RDF (Resource description Framework) [1] will be used to describe exactly which features are supported by a particular name. Henrik [1] http://www.w3.org/RDF/ -- Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk
Received on Thursday, 22 January 1998 17:40:05 UTC