W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2010

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:13:50 +1100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3DB21C7E-F40F-4573-8078-57C410E3F833@mnot.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
FYI, tests online at:
Source at:

My take on this is that it's an area that's important for interoperability that is the responsibility of HTTP, but was omitted from the original specification. We can consider making a clarification here, and if it breaks an implementation or two, we can note that potential incompatibility (just as 2616 did in a few cases).


On 12/03/2010, at 4:52 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> 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

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 13 March 2010 00:14:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:21 UTC