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

Re: #147: header-specific canonicalisation

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:49:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4B8F7415.10609@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 04.03.2010 09:17, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Note:
>>    If a header field is absent from a request, it can only match another
>>    request if it is also absent there.
>> Is that still true? I don't think; maybe we can remove the sentence completely?
> Yes, it is still true.
>     Accept:
> means accept nothing (give me a 300 instead).  No Accept header means
> accept everything.

I do agree for "Accept".

But a header *could* have a normalization behaviour, where the presence 
of an empty header and the absence of the header field have the same 
semantics. (Not a good idea, probably, but that doesn't matter here).

In that case, a header-field specific normalization should allow to 
treat them as matching, no?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 08:50:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:52 UTC