- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:56:56 +1100
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25/03/2009, at 8:01 PM, Yves Lafon wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> 3.2 Warnings >> Most Warning-related text moved to Warning header definition >> Downgraded most requirements for sending and displaying Warning to >> SHOULD > > It is good to keep some of them as MUST, > 214 Transformation Applied is still a MUST which is a good thing. > However 110 Response is stale should be back to MUST instead of > SHOULD, otherwise the client doesn't have a way to differentiate the > response. (but I know that IRL it's almost never done). If the response is stale, shouldn't that be detectable regardless by calculating its freshness lifetime and age independently? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 05:57:33 UTC