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

Re: #327: Expect syntax

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:01:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4EED112A.6080308@gmx.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-12-17 22:58, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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!

+10

>> 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

Example?

> 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.

Which reminds me that this needs to go into the Changes-from-2616 section.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 22:02:24 GMT

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