W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Use of extension-header in entity-header

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:38:52 +0200
To: "Brian Smith" <brian@briansmith.org>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <uosa15pei67sdvfi6gc3lc2vlakvkfcc9e@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Brian Smith wrote:
>It is encoded in the grammar. The names of the grammar productions do not
>define the semantics. The extension-header rule could (should) be factored
>out into Request, Response, and Trailer, but the resultant grammar will be
>equivalent to the original.

I disagree.

>I think it makes a lot of sense to restrict the names of extension-headers
>to be disjoint from at least the set of general-, request-, and response-
>headers defined in the specification. Then an unconditionally-compliant
>implementation could behave the way you describe.

They can do so already, because the requirement is for unrecognized
headers. If an implementation generates an error because it suspects
a header value is malformed, then it does recognize the header. And
merely noting the issue would happen outside the realm of the proto-
col; the specification does not regulate what may or may not be put
into a web server log file, for example.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 15:39:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT