- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:12:57 +1000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19/06/2012, at 12:06 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Mark Nottingham wrote: >> What I've been trying to ask, in so many ways, is why THIS case differs >> from all of the other cases. > > If you name a couple, I assume Julian will happily explain where the > difference is, if there is any; he in fact asked for evidence that the > drafts are currently inconsistent in this regard, as I understood it, > anyway. (I'd offer some if I understood your concern well enough...) I did, way back when... On 14/06/2012, at 1:23 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > I think it's going too far; in similar situations we haven't laid down such draconian rules. > > E.g., we don't place ANY conformance requirements on new headers; it's all advice: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#considerations.for.creating.header.fields> > > Likewise for auth schemes: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p7-auth.html#considerations.for.new.authentication.schemes> > > We don't place any conformance requirements on media type parameters either: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#media.types>; we only note that they can be transmitted in either form. Why not use similar language here? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 02:13:27 UTC