Re: Request for feedback on HTTP Location header syntax + semantics, Re: Issues 43 and 185, was: Issue 43 (combining fragments)

On 11.03.2010 18:22, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Julian Reschke<>  wrote:
>> On 11.03.2010 16:38, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Julian Reschke<>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> Should we recommend the behavior we see implemented (SHOULD? MUST?)? Note
>>>> that this would make current implementations of Opera and Safari
>>>> non-compliant.
>>> Is there a reason to use SHOULD rather than MUST? If not I'd say use MUST.
>> Usually we don't add normative requirements on top of RFC 2616, unless we're
>> clearly fixing a bug (which is not the case here), or are confident that
>> we're just writing down what everybody is doing anyway.
> Why? Isn't the point of a spec to encourage interoperable behavior?

It depends.

If there's no interop today, and the existing implementations are 
conforming with respect to RFC 2616, we *usually* don't break them - 
there would need to be very good reasons to do so, such as security 
related ones.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 17:28:58 UTC