- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:15:52 +1000
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Assigned for -23. On 30/04/2013, at 6:52 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > That works for me too. > > On 30/04/2013, at 6:13 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > >> I don't believe that suggested text is consistent with RFC2119. >> >> In fact, the existing second sentence is just wrong (there is no >> need for documented exceptions), so let's just delete it. >> The existing first sentence is fine. >> >> ....Roy >> >> On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >>> Up until now, we've had this to say about the status of SHOULDs regarding conformance (p1, "Conformance and Error Handling): >>> >>>> An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of the requirements associated with the roles it partakes in HTTP. Note that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant here, unless one of the documented exceptions is applicable. >>> >>> After reviewing the specs (and taking in account the misused SHOULDs and those I think should be stronger, see previous messages), I believe that ALL of the remaining SHOULDs in the set are NOT relevant to conformance, but instead represent implementation guidance. >>> >>> So, I propose we change the text above in p1 to: >>> >>> """ >>> An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of the MUST-level requirements associated with the roles it partakes in HTTP. Note that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant to conformance, but do not formally impact it; instead, they represent implementation guidance. >>> """ >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 05:16:18 UTC