Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Looking back at this discussion, I think we have agreement to drop 
> 'present' (as per Roy), and add the "When a resource's 
> representations..." sentence.

The current text in draft 06 is different from the one that was 
discussed in earlier emails; so I'll have to re-read the thread and 
compare what's in now with what's in RFC 2616...

> I don't see consensus to add language about canonicalising request 
> headers (beyond the process described in p6 2.6).

That's issue <>, 
right? Do we expect consensus to emerge in the future (that is, do we 
leave the issue open)?

BR, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 06:44:19 UTC