- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:39:31 +0100
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Jamie Lokier wrote: >_Every_ HTTP implementation dealing with the web in any significant >way must implement it, even those which handle Set-Cookie2 as well, so >it's silly to make it a MUST NOT condition in the spec. If you think so, the best course of action would be to open a new issue specifically on Set-Cookie. I would disagree with your logic though, we also don't allow, say, sending a body in HEAD responses even though that too is something many implementations have to cope with. >In my proposal it's not outlawed. It SHOULD reject the message as >malformed, which makes sense; it's not a MUST. Recommendations one way or another are already implied in the semantics of status codes and generic good behavior recommendations and common sense; a "SHOULD" goes considerably beyond that, and I would not say the reasons I gave are good enough to violate such a "SHOULD". -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 16:39:43 UTC