- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 10:19:41 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 10:27:44 +0100, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Adam Barth wrote: >>> I suspect it's not really something for HTTPbis to concern itself with, >>> however. >> >> I am concerned because when the three most used browsers do this it means >> lots of people will test their sites and servers with them and everything >> will be fine and dandy even when they lazily don't do the right thing - and >> this will force other HTTP implementors to go this way too sooner or later. >> Pretty much exactly how we ended up with how cookies work. >> >> These three browsers then apparently do something with HTTP that isn't >> mentioned (or referred to) in httpbis. Such hidden knowledge isn't good for >> a protocol spec imho. > > You can (and I think we have) run into the same kind of issues with order of > HTTP headers, HTTP header casing, etc. HTTP isn't very conservative in what > clients have to do, while it probably should be given that there are only so > many clients versus many many servers. Although not protocols, we learned > the same lessons with e.g. CSS, the DOM, and HTML. (Also known as Postel's > law.) I suspect we'll eventually want to write a document that contains all this "hidden knowledge." I suspect HTTPbis will call that document a "browser profile" of HTTP, which seems fine. Not all of these constraints apply in every situation in which HTTP is used. Adam
Received on Saturday, 31 December 2011 18:20:41 UTC