- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:17:22 +0100
- To: Travis Snoozy <ai2097@users.sourceforge.net>
- Cc: "Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)" <yngve@opera.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Travis Snoozy wrote: > > I thought I should mention this particular issue I am seeing. > > > > There are a number of servers that does not handle pipelining at all > > well. > <snip> > > ... and? > > More important than pointing out a bunch of bad implementations is > to point out what's wrong with the RFC that led to the bad > implementations. However, pipelining is pretty cut-and-dried -- I don't > know that the RFC can make it much clearer than it already is. If you > see ambiguities in the RFC that lead to these differing server > behaviors, though, please do identify them. I think it's important to document practical known problems which exist on a substantial scale, and suggested workarounds. There are RFCs which do this. RFC 2616 does a little bit, e.g. suggesting that implementations accept LF or CR LF as a line ending while being clear that LF alone is not conforming. If that sort of thing isn't for RFC2616bis, I suggest that there ought to be _some_ centralised place for it? Dealing with broken implementations is an important part of most HTTP implementations, even though such workarounds ought not to be standardised, but perhaps suggested for a limited time. -- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 16:07:18 UTC