W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02.txt - section 5.1

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
Message-ID: <20120515123013.GC9796@1wt.eu>
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).
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 12:32:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:02 UTC