- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:24:16 -0500
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
At 10:54 3/11/98 -0800, Yaron Goland wrote: >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. I can see that something was cut out of the replacement text. It should have been: An HTTP server MUST NOT return a 2xx status-code without being unconditionally compliant with and obeying all mandatory extension declaration(s) in a mandatory request. A mandatory HTTP request invalidates cached entries as described in [7], section 13.10. Anyway, I would tend to agree - if an extension has multiple levels of compliance but doesn't have a mechanism of finding out internally which level is in use then I think we can say that the extension has a problem. Thanks, Henrik -- Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 1998 16:24:19 UTC