Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88]

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