- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 22:58:05 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:12:05PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: > >However > >the semi-colon after 100-continue was not supposed to happen in 2616, > >which is why I think other implementations might get trapped. > > That is true, but it *is* an edge case. Agreed. > The alternative is to make the grammar different from Prefer:; or to > change Prefer: as well. We have enough different grammars, let's try to factor them as much as possible! > In practice, most parsers that understand ";" separated parameters allow > "empty" parameters (see, for instance, my Content-Disposition test > cases). We can pretend this is wrong, or we can try to bring a bit more > sanity to this. > > In any case, the fact that existing implementations might trip over > something that (for Expect!) will only happen in test cases doesn't seem > to be a big problem to me. Well, it's possible that in a few years we see new implementations write their Expect header as $expectation ";" $extension but by this time, server implementations will have applied the rules from the new RFC and will support the extra semi-colon. I'm not quite worried, I just wanted to outline that *some* existing implementations are not compatible with the proposal, that's all. Best Regards, Willy
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 21:58:46 UTC