Re: Comments (Part 2) on HTTP I-D Rev 05 (Adams #84, Accept-Charset)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Adams, Glenn: "Comments (Part 3) on HTTP I-D Rev 05"
• Previous message: Jim Gettys: "Re: Comments (Part 2) on HTTP I-D Rev 05"
• Next in thread: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: ADAMS1, point 31. (cachability of methods)."
• Reply: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: ADAMS1, point 31. (cachability of methods)."

Glenn Adams writes:

> 
> 84. Section 14.2, pg. 93, 4th para., has "the server SHOULD send an
> error response with the 406 (not acceptable) status code, though the
> sending of an unacceptable response is also allowed." The effect of the
> final clause of this statement is to downgrade SHOULD to MAY.  Either
> remove the final clause or change to MAY. [My preference is to remove
> the final clause.]  Note that the semantics stated here are expressly
> different from Accept and Accept-Encoding which do require 406
> responses for unconditionally compliant implementations.  This
> inconsistency will make it difficult or impossible to implement
> agent-driven content negotiation based on Accept-Charset variants.

What is the correct fix here?  Opinions solicited.
				- Jim

• Next message: Adams, Glenn: "Comments (Part 3) on HTTP I-D Rev 05"
• Previous message: Jim Gettys: "Re: Comments (Part 2) on HTTP I-D Rev 05"
• Next in thread: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: ADAMS1, point 31. (cachability of methods)."
• Reply: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: ADAMS1, point 31. (cachability of methods)."