W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:21:58 -0800
Message-Id: <2D1DFF20-616E-46FD-9FB4-776847F3BE11@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Now i93; <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i93>.


On 20/11/2007, at 1:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> (follow-up to a discussion over at the HTML mailing list, see  
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0271.html>).
>
> We currently say in Section 4.2:
>
>    Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MAY be
>    present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that
>    header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., # 
> (values)].
>
> -- <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-4.2>
>
> Now this seems to be kind of backwards, wouldn't it be *much*  
> clearer if it said:
>
>    Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MUST NOT be
>    present in a message unless the entire field-value for that
>    header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., # 
> (values)].
>
> That being said, do we have a recommendation for recipients when  
> that requirement is violated? I would assume that servers SHOULD  
> return a 400 (Bad Request), but what about clients?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 05:22:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT