- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:55:21 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Yves Lafon wrote:
>> I think I read the above sentence as "if SHOULD NOT is not respected then
>> response MUST", while it is really if it is not an If-Range...
>
> That's how I read it too.
> Which means it could be worded more clearly.
The original text was:
[[
If the 206 response is the result of an If-Range request that used a
strong cache validator (see section 13.3.3), the response SHOULD NOT
include other entity-headers. If the response is the result of an If-Range
request that used a weak validator, the response MUST NOT include other
entity-headers; this prevents inconsistencies between cached entity-bodies
and updated headers. Otherwise, the response MUST include all of the
entity-headers that would have been returned with a 200 (OK) response to
the same request.
]]
It has the same spirit as the new text, so there were no errors
introduced by fixing issue #18
Implementation-wise it is clear that if the SHOULD NOT is not respected
then the MUST applies, so I don't think that rewording is really necessary.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 09:55:34 UTC