- From: Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:15:31 +0900
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Dear Julian, I support the final conclusion, but am only against the reasoning text. The fact that people did a "loose" thing does not mean that the followers should do as well. We have a direct reason to do so instead, doesn't we? If there are any major "senders" which have been sent token realms for a long time, it is much important than the current reason. In this case, I propose the following: > Recipients are RECOMMENDED to accept both token and quoted- > string syntax as both have been sent by several HTTP servers > (and successfully accepted by common user-agents) for many years. # In this case, there should be an RFC2119 "RECOMMENDED", I think. If not, my proposal is a much simpler clause as: > Recipients might have to support both token and quoted- > string syntax for maximum input tolerability (both have been > accepted by common user-agents for many years). # or, s/might have to support/might be better supporting/ Yes, input tolerability is a good thing (at least on this case). -- Yutaka OIWA, Ph.D. Research Scientist Research Center for Information Security (RCIS) National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) Mail addresses: <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>, <yutaka@oiwa.jp> OpenPGP: id[440546B5] fp[7C9F 723A 7559 3246 229D 3139 8677 9BD2 4405 46B5]
Received on Sunday, 20 November 2011 18:16:08 UTC