- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:39:51 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 12 Feb 2008, at 16:42, Julian Reschke wrote: > Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: >> If you really want to require such a thing it is worth noting that >> it is extremely unlikely that any major HTTP implementation will >> actually abide by what 2616bis requires (therefore making the major >> implementations non-conforming). Do you really want to write a >> spec. with couple of academic/experimental implementations, and >> nothing else? Surely it'd be more useful to specify HTTP in such a >> way that the major implementations can actually abide by the >> specification (while meeting market demands)? > > Did you follow the long discussion leading to this change? Yes, I did. > The reason we are making a change is that user agents indeed do > *not* do what RFC2616 said. Thus we're removing that specific > requirement. IMHO. My point is that the issue with a MUST level requirement is that because of what other specifications require (in the text/xml case, RFC3023) it is still impossible to satisfy HTTP's requirements, therefore user agents still do *not* (and will not) do what HTTP says. The four most popular browsers aren't going to change their behaviour regarding this. The only sensible thing to do, for the sake of interoperability, is to match what they do, which we still don't do. -- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 17:40:18 UTC