- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:49:17 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Tracking in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/187>
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
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/187/187.diff>.
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