Re: First reactions to mandatory draft

From: Scott Lawrence (
Date: Tue, Jan 20 1998

Message-Id: <>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:19:55 -0500
From: "Scott Lawrence" <>
Subject: Re: First reactions to mandatory draft

>>>>> "JM" == Jeffrey Mogul <> writes:

JM> On the other hand, it's not clear to me that an extension-aware
JM> HTTP implementation should be discarding headers as "unrecognized"
JM> before it has parsed them all. [...]

JM> Consider another, perfectly legal example:

JM> 	GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1
JM> 	Accept-Language: en;q=0.9
JM> 	Host:
JM> 	Accept-Language: fr;q=0.5
JM> 	User-Agent: Count Chocula
JM> 	Accept-Language: en-us;q=0.7

JM> I don't see how you can properly parse the Accept-Language
JM> field without at least some buffering.  (Not "back-tracking",
JM> but "buffering.")

  But that is not the same case - Accept-Language is not an
  unrecognized header, and in event, the server doesn't need to buffer
  the header itself, just the header value - and can fold the values
  from multiple instances of the header.

  What I believe is needed is a way for the sender to say 'In order to
  correctly interpret this message you must understand this set of
  extentions'.  I don't think that the prefix mechanism is needed to
  say that.

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering