W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: #314: realm parameter syntax

From: Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:15:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAL8DUN-oRXTfRiNT7fsP5x1Gi_JjsBJzkgo5S6ORPOOTgRB3hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Dear Julian,

I support the final conclusion, but am only against the reasoning text.
The fact that people did a "loose" thing does not mean
that the followers should do as well.
We have a direct reason to do so instead, doesn't we?

If there are any major "senders" which have been sent token realms
for a long time, it is much important than the current reason.
In this case, I propose the following:

> Recipients are RECOMMENDED to accept both token and quoted-
> string syntax as both have been sent by several HTTP servers
> (and successfully accepted by common user-agents) for many years.

# In this case, there should be an RFC2119 "RECOMMENDED", I think.

If not, my proposal is a much simpler clause as:

> Recipients might have to support both token and quoted-
> string syntax for maximum input tolerability (both have been
> accepted by common user-agents for many years).

# or, s/might have to support/might be better supporting/

Yes, input tolerability is a good thing (at least on this case).

--
Yutaka OIWA, Ph.D.                                       Research Scientist
                           Research Center for Information Security (RCIS)
   National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
                     Mail addresses: <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>, <yutaka@oiwa.jp>
OpenPGP: id[440546B5] fp[7C9F 723A 7559 3246 229D  3139 8677 9BD2 4405 46B5]
Received on Sunday, 20 November 2011 18:16:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT