- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 19:30:27 +1000
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
The subsequent conversation doesn't demonstrate a lot of consensus here, so I'm happy to drop this issue. Any objection to that? On 23/04/2013, at 5:22 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > p2 5.1.1 requires that an unrecognised expectation be replied to with a 417 Expectation Failed. > > In my testing, it's fairly common for servers to ignore an unregistered expectation (e.g., "foo"). > > Given how many problems we already have with Expect, should we consider disallowing further extensions here, and removing this requirement? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 09:30:56 UTC