- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:51:31 +1000
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 09/09/2011, at 4:00 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Except for the minor detail that Expect was added after RFC2068, and hence > anyone implementing to the older RFC (or anyone just failing to implement > every single aspect of 2616) will not fail as defined. Right. For (lots) more detail, see Bestevros, et al's work: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.18.4734 I'm all for adding some language that points out further use of Expect as an attractive nuisance. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 12 September 2011 04:52:03 UTC