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

Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers

From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:39:21 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1198852761.8554.40.camel@hlaptop>

sön 2007-12-23 klockan 22:53 +1100 skrev Mark Nottingham:

>    1. There is no one "right" answer; different kinds of clients -- or  
> the same client in different situations -- may need to act differently  
> upon an error, for most kinds of errors (there may be exceptions), and
>    2. Specifying behaviour for handling every conceivable error isn't  
> possible, attempting to do so will seriously bloat the specification,  
> and will not significantly improve interoperability.
> We'll wait for Roy's text to see if there's consensus, but if you have  
> a problem with this, speaking up sooner rather than later would be good.

I agree with the view expressed above, with one exception.
Content-Length deserves an explicit mention due to it's use in parsing
of the protocol itself.

For all other single-valued headers I know about it's sufficient to say
that one SHOULD NOT send more than one value of a header defined as
single-valued, except for proxies & gateways which MAY if the
request/response they received had multiple values for the header in

How recipients deal with multiple values is better left implementation
dependent, with maybe a note to remind implementers that nothing stops
others from sending them malformed data such as multiple values of a
single-valued header, and general MAY rules on how clients respektive
serves should respond when detecting such messages if it matters to the

Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 14:39:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC