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

Re: #147: header-specific canonicalisation

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:13:10 -0800
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8F97C710-A04D-42E3-A631-838A7EE520DE@gbiv.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Mar 4, 2010, at 12:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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?

No, there are no request header fields with that characteristic
that would appear in Vary, and we are better off letting caches
be ignorant of the meaning of a field while running these tests.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 20:13:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:16 GMT