On 17.10.2010 20:04, Julian Reschke wrote: > ... > 2) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/244>: "state that > repeating parameters are invalid" > > Addressed in "latest" draft with > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1024>. > ... I should have mentioned what I added: "Parameter names MUST NOT be repeated; a header field value with multiple instances of the same parameter &SHOULD; be treated as invalid." This goes a bit further than post HTTP header field definitions in saying "SHOULD be treated as invalid", which is equivalent to "SHOULD NOT do error recovery". Maybe this should be reduced to a simple statement of fact ("is invalid"), without requiring any specific behavior (*)? Best regards, Julian (*) I understand that some among us believe that error handling needs to be specified; but *if* we do this (and I don't think we should), we should be consistent in doing that.Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 12:56:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:30 GMT