- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:26:35 +0100
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
* Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >On ons, 2007-11-14 at 14:29 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >> > On ons, 2007-11-14 at 11:25 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> > >> >> OTOH, making this requirement a SHOULD is probably closer to >> >> reflecting current practice, especially if we were to have some >> >> explanatory text about it. >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > There is no reason to have MUST level requirements without any >> > noticeable impact on the operations of the protocol. And Via is >> > certainly in that category. >> >> I would argue we should open a new issue for this one, i5 >> (<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i5>) was about >> the inconsistency between SHOULD (14.38) and MUST (14.45). We fixed that >> IMHO correctly (using consistently the stronger requirement). >> >> So if we want to relax the MUST level requirement, that should be >> treated separately... > >Yes, it's two separate issues, even if the solution is mutually >exclusive in terms of text change relateive to 2616. Could you post a NEW ISSUE mail on this then? Thanks, -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 20:26:58 UTC