- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:28:16 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 11.03.2010 18:22, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> On 11.03.2010 16:38, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Should we recommend the behavior we see implemented (SHOULD? MUST?)? Note >>>> that this would make current implementations of Opera and Safari >>>> non-compliant. >>> >>> Is there a reason to use SHOULD rather than MUST? If not I'd say use MUST. >> >> Usually we don't add normative requirements on top of RFC 2616, unless we're >> clearly fixing a bug (which is not the case here), or are confident that >> we're just writing down what everybody is doing anyway. > > Why? Isn't the point of a spec to encourage interoperable behavior? It depends. If there's no interop today, and the existing implementations are conforming with respect to RFC 2616, we *usually* don't break them - there would need to be very good reasons to do so, such as security related ones. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 17:28:57 UTC