- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:53:59 +0200
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- CC: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-07-10 16:42, Jeff Pinner wrote: > Julian, if you recall (or have easily accessible) I'd love to hear the > rational for the "ought to be handled as an error" line as opposed to a > "SHOULD return a 400" or "MUST return a 400." > > Perhaps it is due to some subtlety that should lead us to reconsider the > 2.0 requirement? Or perhaps it is due to legacy implementations and it > could guide us in wording to add to a HTTP/1.1 <--> HTTP/2.0 section? > > - Jeff Generally, when we say "ought to" it's because it's a really good idea, but for some reason we really can't require it. In this particular case I suspect that it's a problem common enough so that existing UAs simply can't enforce it (the error handling). Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 14:54:34 UTC