Issue 187 (Warn header (P6) vs RFC2047 encoding)

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Tracking in <>

We have discussed this face-to-face last week, and I think there was 
agreement that RFC 2047 in Warning headers is not implemented anywhere, 
and thus we should remove it from the spec.

I have attached a proposed patch to the ticket, see 

The changed parts would read:


3.6.  Warning


    When this occurs, the user agent SHOULD inform the user of as many of
    them as possible, in the order that they appear in the response.  If
    it is not possible to inform the user of all of the warnings, the
    user agent SHOULD follow the rule below:

    o  Warnings that appear early in the response take priority over
       those appearing later in the response.

    Systems that generate multiple Warning headers SHOULD order them with
    this user agent behavior in mind.  New Warning headers SHOULD be
    added after any existing Warning headers.

    Warnings are assigned three digit warn-codes.  The first digit
    indicates whether the Warning is required to be deleted from a stored
    response after validation:


    The warn-text SHOULD be in a natural language that is most likely to
    be intelligible to the human user receiving the response.  This
    decision can be based on any available knowledge, such as the
    location of the cache or user, the Accept-Language field in a
    request, the Content-Language field in a response, etc.  The default
    language is English.



That being said: considering the current state of implementation support 
for Warning we may want to trim down the description even more.

BR, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 13:50:04 UTC