On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 15:59 +0100, Douglas Furlong wrote: > > > RFC's are guidelines, not standards. I have not seeing any software out > > > there that adheres 100% to the RFC's, there are always relaxed > > > interpretations. > > > > HTTP 1.1 is a standard. Right? Wrong? > > Right! The standard is RFC 2616 IIRC. > > ^^^ > > > Just a tiny point, just because some thing has an RFC, and is a > standard, does not mean it's a standard due to the existence of the RFC. I agree, but just because it is an RFC it doens't mean it's not a standard :) (which is what I was refuting!) Rui
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
