- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:57:37 +1000
- To: Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 20/06/2012, at 9:31 PM, Yutaka OIWA wrote: > Dear Mark, > > 2012/6/20 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>: > >> That's effectively where we are; note that there aren't any RFC2119 conformance requirements placed around this. > > I prefer to be explicit that use of 403 is just a preference > and is not RFC2119 nor other "requirements". > "Ought-to" sounds to be louder than RECOMMENDED, as a natural language. > # correct me if I have an English problem. We've consistently used "ought to" to give advice and encourage certain behaviours without making it a conformance requirement (thereby breaking existing implementations). The normative requirements are expressed (and always have been) in RFC2119 language. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 23:58:14 UTC