- From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:39:11 -0800
- 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 UTC