Mark Baker wrote: > My previous suggestion is as far as I would feel comfortable going > along these lines; > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0018.html +1. There's a lot of text in RFC 2616 that are better off removed because they don't actually help define the protocol; often these parts of the spec just create confusion. This is a prime example. - BrianReceived on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 07:29:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC