- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:23:28 +0100
- To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Moore, Jonathan (CIM)" <Jonathan_Moore@comcast.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-12-13 20:08, James Snell wrote: > Yes, they are invalid. I need to point that out. They are equivalent > to the first but shouldn't ever be done. > ... Not sure that phrasing it this way is a good idea. If they are invalid, they can't be equivalent. If you want to make them equivalent, then you have to require recipients to process them. (my preference would be to leave them invalid) Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 10:24:01 UTC