- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:56:46 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:43:26 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> I.e., define the semantics of rev in case it's received, but prohibit > >> sending it? > > > > Right, exactly. > > This works for me too, though I hope it does not mean browsers suddenly > have to start supporting something browsers never really properly > implemented in the first place. (I think "rev" fails the rough consensus > and running code mantra, but I might be missing something here.) Yeah it may be that the semantics are "it does nothing", in which case I'd be fine with just not mentioning it at all. I haven't done any testing. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 18:56:14 UTC