Re: [draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06] rev

On 24/08/2009, at 12:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> Anne? Ian? IIRC both of your requested the removal of "rev"; how do  
>> you
>> feel about leaving it in the grammar but strengthening the text to
>> clarify that implementations are not required to interpret / use it?
>
> My ideal situation would be for rev=""'s semantics and (more  
> importantly)
> user agent conformance criteria to be fully defined in detail, but  
> for the
> authoring conformance criteria to make _use_ of rev="" non-conforming.

I.e., define the semantics of rev in case it's received, but prohibit  
sending it?




--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 03:08:48 UTC