- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 19:34:23 PDT
- To: sjk@amazon.com
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
] > And the wording in section 6.2.2 should change to say that the response
] > "should" include a Location header field, instead of "may", when the
] > entity in the response corresponds to a resource.
] >
] I don't know -- I think you should look at the uses of "should" in
] 8.19 a little more closely.
I'm not sure what your objection is. But, if a server doesn't include
a Location header field in a response to POST, then you're shopping
basket application won't work, just as you seemed to be complaining
about. So it seems to me you should be in favor of a stronger wording.
As to the meaning of should, lots of RFCs use the following definition
for "should":
This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
ignore this item, but the full implications should be
understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing
to do so.
Thus, "should" shouldn't be used if one of the exceptions is (e.g.)
"when using POST" -- i.e., a very common thing.
Paul
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 1995 19:51:30 UTC