- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:54:11 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 11, 2008, at 1:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> My understanding is that a proposal along these lines* is >> acceptable, with one exception; Julian believes that if we do >> this, we should also relax the client-side requirement. > > Yes. > >> One way to do that would be to change "SHOULD"->"should" (i.e., >> make it advisory text, instead of a requirement). >> Thoughts? >> ... > > I don't think that lowercasing the requirement is sufficient; it's > still a requirement. My proposal is to get rid of it, so to drop: > > "However, the indications given by the Allow header field value > SHOULD be followed." > > completely. +1 ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 17:54:28 UTC