Re: [http-state] Updated draft

[Daniel Stenberg <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Dan Winship wrote:

> curl *does* work with 99.[something]% of web sites. But (100 - 
> 99.[something]) * number_of_web_sites_in_the_world is still a big number.

Yes, but similar to how the cookie definition covers what we estimate to be 
99.6% of the cookie sites (for the 'expires' date format), we would cover a 
similar percentage of sites by not specifying the sort order.

You both are claiming that only because the major browsers do something for 
0.[something]% of the servers we need to have it specified while I would argue 
that it is enough for the spec to cover 99.[something]%.

If sites depend on the exact sort order of one of these browsers, they could 
also easily break because the subtle differences in sort order they use so 
thus none of the browsers could claim to be 100% covering since they differ in 
implementations.

But sure, let's leave this for now. I still won't agree that sort order should 
be defined until someone can come up with a good reason why it is there in the 
first place, or can present at least a small amount of actual server side 
users that break if this sorting isn't done.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se