Re: ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem
Scott Lawrence (lawrence@agranat.com)
Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:47:03 +0000
> At 19:20 7/28/98 +0000, Scott Lawrence wrote:
>
> >I believe that the MUST should stand; making it a SHOULD renders the
> >Expect feature almost useless.
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen replied:
> I agree, but isn't this in fact the case in practice? Wouldn't it be
> better to let Mandatory handle this as it has a stronger mechanism
> for enforcing client based requirements based on the M- method name
> prefix?
... but have you tested what happens with old servers (and CGI programs) if
you send them new methods? At least in the case of CGIs they often ignore
the method - in short, you have exactly the same situation faced by Expect,
but more complex. Don't get me wrong - I like the Mandatory mechanism
because it is so much more descriptive, but I don't think that it is any
better from a backward compatibility point of view (and cannot be made any
better).
--
Scott Lawrence Consulting Engineer <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc. Embedded Web Technology http://www.agranat.com/