- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:28:49 +1000
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Now issue 57; http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i57 On 11/01/2007, at 8:43 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > 6.1.1 Status Code and Reason Phrase > > is apparently a bit too vague about how applications should parse and > process the information, making some implementations parse the reason > phrase (probably exact matches on the complete status line, not just > status code) to determine the outcome. > > There should be a SHOULD requirement or equivalent that > applications use > the status code to determine the status of the response and only > process > the Reason Phrase as a comment intended for humans. > > It's true that later in the same section there is a reverse MAY > requirement implying this by saying that the phrases in the rfc is > just > an example and may be replaced without affecting the protocol, but > apparently it's not sufficient for implementers to understand that > applications should not decide the outcome based on the reason phrase. > > I propose rewording the last sentence of the first paragraph "The > client > is not required to examine or display the Reason-Phrase." into > something > like > > The client MAY present the Reason Phrase to the user and > SHOULD NOT examine the Reason Phrase for other purposes. > > or perhaps > > The client SHOULD NOT examine the Reason Phrase for other > purposes than displaying it to the user. > > Regards > Henrik > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 08:26:31 UTC