- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:39:21 -0800
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Are you saying that s/MUST/SHOULD/ is adequate, or agreeing that splitting it into two requirements, making the second a SHOULD, is necessary? On 05/02/2008, at 4:47 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote: > > mån 2008-02-04 klockan 23:08 -0800 skrev Mark Nottingham: >> My thinking was that it may be necessary to preserve the MUST on the >> presence of the header (in case any software had been written to >> depend upon its presence), but to loosen the implied requirement that >> the list of headers be complete. > > SHOULD is more than sufficuent for a such requirement level. > > Regards > Henrik -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 14:39:35 UTC