- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:12:08 +0200
- To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-10-23 16:51, Barry Leiba wrote: > The following points were not addressed to my satisfaction. While > some individuals replied, so far as I can tell, the WG itself has > never officially tracked this feedback nor has it given an official > response. > > You can find the post I'm replying to in the archives here: > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010JanMar/0170.html> > As far as I can tell, the end of the discussion on this was the > following post from me: > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010JanMar/0177.html>. > > > I agree with Maciej that (1) he has raised a valid set of issues and (2) > they have not been adequately addressed. > > In fact, I also agree with his assessment, and think the "must" and > "must not" statements should be changed to "should" and "should not", > though that is separate from my concern that his issues have not been > adequately addressed. I'd at least like to hear someone explain *why* > the "must -> should" change would be bad or wrong, and see support for > that explanation. > ... The WG already decided to change the requirements to simple prose that just explains the issue. That being said, I'm not sure how changing a MUST (which isn't in the spec anyway anymore) to a SHOULD would actually help addressing Maciej's concern. Best regards,
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 15:12:45 UTC