Re: First reactions to mandatory draft

From: Scott Lawrence (lawrence@agranat.com)
Date: Tue, Jan 20 1998


Message-Id: <199801202119.QAA03325@devnix.agranat.com>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
cc: ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:19:55 -0500
From: "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com>
Subject: Re: First reactions to mandatory draft


>>>>> "JM" == Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com> 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: bar.com
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       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/