- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:30:13 +0200
- To: John Sullivan <jsullivan@velocix.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Andreas Petersson <andreas@sbin.se>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:15:02PM +0100, John Sullivan wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: > > The HTTP community has been inventing new microsyntaxes for many years, > > and as far as I can tell, most header field parsers out there are broken > > beyond belief. We need less of them, even if this means that a few edge > > cases will be more verbose than necessary. > > This. Each new syntax risks getting it wrong (even if in this case > it ought to be fairly safe) - just look at the horrible horrible > mess that is the history of Set-Cookie. > > In addition to the headers I pointed out yesterday that use > close variations on the theme, the definition of Expect appears > to be almost *exactly* this syntax - except that it makes the > value part ( "=" ( token / quoted-string ) ) optional. This allows > for the sending of value-less flags without having to use the > somewhat grotty flag="" construct. Perhaps adopting that syntax > verbatim would be a good idea? I too think so, it can be useful for boolean attributes (eg: 'secure' instead of 'secure="yes"' or things like this). Regards, Willy
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 12:32:43 UTC