- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:47:27 +0100
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
On Friday 06 January 2012 15:24:56 Thomas Roessler wrote: > > Again, we all agree on the desired outcome. The rest is a formalistic > > argument that is about social rulemaking rules. And there it makes > > sense not to trespass into the HTTP Specification (e.g. what about > > caching etc). > You're trying to defend the right high-level principle here, but it doesn't > apply in this particular case. It even applies here as we should limit ourselves by the boundaries given in the HTTP Specification. We can conclude that by saying "MUST NOT" we do not trespass the HTTP Specification. This could count as a solution to Issue 95. Best, Rigo
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 14:47:53 UTC