- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 19:38:16 PDT
- To: hopmann@holonet.net
- Cc: dwm@shell.portal.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I'm sorry, but I think if current practice is broken and you want to make people aware of it, you can write two documents: (a) a standards-track document saying what the standard should be, and (b) an informational RFC that says what the current state of the implementation of the standard is. I think all of this stuff about "the standard should reflect current practice on the Internet" is mainly a way of removing creeping featurism. What we really meant to say is that "the standard shouldn't have any more features in it than what people have actually generally implemented". I don't think we need to accomodate, in the standards document 'content-length is the length of the content except when it isn't'.
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 1995 19:46:45 UTC