- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:29:33 +1300
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > > Unless there's another place in the spec making statements about > repeating headers (is there?), both > > MAY do X, iff Y > > and > > MUST NOT do X, unless Y > > are equivalent. > neither of these constructs are that great - having read this one being thrashed out in other conversations. I think we need to look into what the goal is. Clarity surely? there are complications as previously discussed around use of the word "MAY", in the strict (RFC defined) sense, vs the everyday sense Personally I feel the first form is more correct, since to derive the same meaning from the second form, you have to implicitly convert a conditional non-denial into an optional conditional permission. They aren't 100% the same thing. Lack of denial is not necessarily a grant of permission. There may be other factors. If you want real clarity, we may need to say something more convoluted, i.e. repetitive, such as MAY do X but only if Y. If not Y then MUST NOT do X It's redundant etc, but it drums in that doing X is _optional_, but only on condition that Y is met, otherwise X is not permitted. Use of the word "only" (which is in the spec in a few places) can make things a bit fuzzy. Adding "but" can help there in terms of general legibility. -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 11:31:51 UTC