- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:19:36 +0100
- To: Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Robert Sayre wrote: > The only downside I see to this partitioning is that the header > definitions are split up. I found that listing in 2616 pretty > convenient, but I suppose documents like the header registry are a > better reference these days. I think it's fine if the header _definitions_ are split among their appropriate documents, but an index of all of them together, referring to their definitions in other documents, would be a handy reference. Another very handy reference would be a quick list of "to claim HTTP/1.1 compliance, a client/server/proxy implementation MUST (very brief): ...", and in that list refer to the individual documents. I've seen too many little servers reporting themselves as HTTP/1.1 which don't even try to implement half of the MUSTs in RFC2616. Another, IMHO, would be "As of 2007, some of the widespread implementation bugs and workarounds needed for practical internet interoperability are..." It's outside the scope of HTTP's definition, but it would be pretty handy to _somwehere_ consolidate the knowledge that different implementors have gathered. -- Jamie
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 10:32:24 UTC