Re: ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Dave Kristol: "[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-http-state-man-mec-10.txt,.ps]"
• Previous message: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: "Re: Issue: TE-IDENTITY"
• In reply to: Scott Lawrence: "Re: ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem"
• Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem"

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.

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?

Henrik
--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk

• Next message: Dave Kristol: "[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-http-state-man-mec-10.txt,.ps]"
• Previous message: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: "Re: Issue: TE-IDENTITY"
• In reply to: Scott Lawrence: "Re: ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem"
• Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem"