- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:52:42 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 11.03.2010 18:22, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 11.03.2010 16:38, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> >>>> 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. I can't say that I agree with that reasoning. IMHO interoperability going forward is more important than not declaring currently conforming implementations non-conforming. If anyone gets really sad for loosing their conforming badge, I can send them some home made cookies ;) / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 17:53:30 UTC