- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 13:18:24 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 8, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > I.e., allow entity bodes on 205? A recipient has to parse for it anyway. A sender has no motivation to send it anyway. That's why it is not an interoperability requirement. > *shrug* In the scheme of things, it's not that important, I > suppose, since they're not widely used. However, it seems you'd > have the same philosophical debates either way -- "what is the > meaning of an entity on a 205 response" vs. "what is the meaning of > the entity headers on a 205 response"? I meant the philosophy of having a "MUST include" of something that, by its very nature, cannot be "included". The original is correct in stating a negative requirement (sent response must not contain an entity). I don't think we are going to improve on it until we remove all of the parsing requirements from the status code definitions (leaving only one section in which all message-parsing requirements are defined), and I'll never be able to get to that if every single issue generates a long pointless thread on the mailing list. Let's just close this one as "won't fix". ....Roy
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 11:18:55 UTC