- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:21:41 +0200
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: "William Chan (ιζΊζ)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 12.10.2010 18:13, Adam Barth wrote: >>> I would say: >>> >>> "...If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it MUST >>> be treated as error." >>> >>> (or at the SHOULD-level if you're scared of MUST-level requirements). >> >> Well, "MUST be treated as error" isn't really helpful; it doesn't require >> any observable behavior. >> >> That a response message like this *is* broken is a statement of fact; the >> question is whether we want to require any specific handling. So, for >> instance, do we want to forbid any of the behaviors we see today? (use the >> first value/use the second value/use until end of connection)? > > I see. I meant that the user agent MUST close the socket and ignore > the response, or whatever the HTTP spec idiom is for instructing the > user agent to treat this response as a fatal error. Yes. As a matter of fact, my proposal wasn't better in that aspect :-) So... "If this is a response message received by a user-agent, it SHOULD be treated as in error by ignoring the message and closing the connection." Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 16:22:20 UTC