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

Re: Prefer Draft Feedback

From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:39:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbc6jiwU0cinVhsxaT5bpjkBkV4UJwwgWXfVNrX2_292sA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian, thanks for the input... comments below...


On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2011-12-03 00:01, James Snell wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I would like to take a quick moment to solicit feedback on the current
>> version of the HTTP Prefer Header specification:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-04
>>
>> The draft should be pretty well self-explanatory. There are some
>> highly tentative pieces included in this draft that may likely be
>> removed in a future iteration. They have been included now primarily
>> for the purpose of soliciting feedback on their overall utility.
>> ...
>
>
> Will review.
>
> One thing I already noticed is that the spec does the same mistake most
> other header field definitions make; it defines an extensible syntax but
> then special cases the header field it defines itself.
>

Excellent point... will clarify that in the draft.

> Parsing should be uniform.
>
> So,
>
> - if you take value-less tokens, you need to state whether
>
>  x
>
>  x=
>
>  x=""
>
> are equivalent or not.
>

Yes, these would be equivalent. I will make sure that's clear.

> - if values can be tokens or quoted-strings, you should state that both
> notations are equivalent, and are allowed everywhere, so are
>
>  priority=100
>
> and
>
>  priority="100"
>
> the same thing?
>
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 18:39:50 GMT

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