- From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:27:06 -0800
- To: "Adams, Glenn" <gadams@spyglass.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> 28. Section 8.2.3, pg. 45, has the phrase "(Confirmation by user-agent > software with semantic understanding of the application MAY substitute > for use confirmation.)" This appears to controvert the stronger language > in Section 8.1.4, para. 4, which does not have this parenthetical note. Yes, it is a relaxation if the user agent understands what is going on (e.g. java or javascript applications). Actually, section 8.2.3 looks almost entirely redundant with the 4th paragraph of 8.1.4 (with the exception of the parenthetical remark), though slightly contradictory (a MUST NOT vs. a SHOULD NOT). So I think deleting section 8.2.3, and moving the sentence about sofware with semantic understanding to that paragraph of 8.1.4 results in: "This means that clients, servers, and proxies MUST be able to recover from asynchronous close events. Client software SHOULD reopen the transport connection and retransmit the aborted sequence of requests without user interaction so long as the request sequence is idempotent (see section 9.1.2). Non-idempotent methods or sequences MUST NOT be automatically retried, although user agents MAY offer a human operator the choice of retrying the request(s). Confirmation by user-agent software with semantic understanding of the application MAY substitute for user confirmation. The automatic retry SHOULD NOT be repeated if the second sequence of requests fails." will solve this. - Jim
Received on Friday, 13 November 1998 11:33:36 UTC