W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: #168: understanding CC directives

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:03:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4C0CFC47.2060404@gmx.de>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
On 07.06.2010 14:24, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> ...
> hang on a minute. The existing BNF is logically incorrect, the proposed
> replacement is logically correct, but we worry about confusion?
> ...

Nope.

The proposed ABNF violates the syntax requirement for list-typed 
headers, at least when read literally:

"Multiple header fields with the same field name MUST NOT be sent in a 
message unless the entire field value for that header field is defined 
as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)]." -- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-09.html#rfc.section.3.2.p.6>

> I think it's more likely to create implementor confusion by having the
> ABNF disagree with the prose. It should still be clear to anyone that
> the choice is between a list of request directives or a list of response
> directives.

I think that's pretty clear already. Do we have evidence that *anybody* 
has been confused about this in the past?

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 14:04:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:20 GMT