- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:54:25 -0800
- To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <frystyk@w3.org>, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Why restrict to unconditional compliance? If someone puts in a mandatory
requirement for HTTP/1.1 compliance and the server is only conditional
compliant it has to fail the request? Compliant is compliant is compliant.
Conditional or otherwise. You wana distinguish between conditional and
unconditional? Put in a switch. Hell, not every spec even uses a
conditional/unconditional distinction.
Yaron
-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:frystyk@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 10:41 AM
To: ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Subject: Issues: UNCONDITIONAL_COMPLIANCE = Proposed wording
In section 3, change
An extension declaration can be used to indicate that an extension
has
been applied to a message and possibly to reserve a part of the
header
namespace identified by a header field prefix (see 3.1).
to
An extension declaration can be used to indicate that an
extension has been applied to a message and possibly to
reserve a part of the header namespace identified by a header
field prefix (see 3.1).
This specification does not define any ramifications of
applying an extension to a message nor whether two
extensions can or cannot coexist within the same message.
It is strictly a framework for describing which extensions
have been applied and what the recipient either must or may
do in order to properly interpret any extension declarations
within a message.
and add in section 5, change
An HTTP server MUST NOT return a 2xx status-code without obeying all
mandatory extension declaration(s) in a mandatory request.
to
An HTTP server MUST NOT return a 2xx status-code without
being unconditionally compliant with all mandatory extension
declaration(s) in a mandatory request.
Comments?
Henrik
--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 1998 13:54:31 UTC