W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: HTTP 1.1 issue 04: 4.2 Message Headers

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:52:10 -0800
Message-Id: <9811101852.AA29032@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: Ross Patterson <ROSSP@ss1.reston.vmd.sterling.com>
Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/186

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".
				- Jim
Received 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