From: "Ross Patterson" <ROSSP@SS1.Reston.VMD.Sterling.COM> Resent-From: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Date: Wed, 28 Oct 98 12:01:41 EST To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: HTTP 1.1 issue 04: 4.2 Message Headers ----- >In section 4.2 "Message Headers", the statement > > "Applications SHOULD follow "common form", where one is known or > indicated, when generating HTTP constructs, since there might > exist some implementations that fail to accept anything beyond the > common forms." > >is so vague as to be impossible to measure, and should therefore not be >normative and a requirement of compliance. I've brought this one up >before, so if the general opinion goes against me I won't complain. I guess I agree with you, particularly since "common form" is hard to define (and not used in other specifications much, as I read a quick AltaVista search). So I'll replace "SHOULD" with "ought to". - JimReceived on Tuesday, 10 November 1998 11:00:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:05 UTC