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

Re: WGLC #353: Multiple Values in Cache-Control headers

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:10:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4FD5E04B.2000103@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-06-11 13:57, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
>> If that is the case, we probably need to spend some more time on clarifying this, as this different from similar header fields.
>
> How so? I thought we'd agreed we don't have shared microsyntax / model for our existing headers...

At least for those headers that inherit MIME header field parameter 
syntax (such as C-T and C-D) I believe the consensus was that parameters 
can not get repeated. It might be hard to find something normative on 
that, though.

So let's rephrase this: optimally, we

- defined this for all header fields in the spec (optimally globally for 
all parameters of that header field), and

- advise people defining new header fields to do so as well (-> 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19.html#rfc.section.3.1>)

>>>> Can the definition of error recovery diverge per directive?
>>>
>>> I imagine so.
>>
>> Which makes it sound as if we should define it for all directives defined in this spec (as bad as this sounds)...
>
>
> If someone wants to point out specific instances where they believe it's important for security and/or interoperability, and it doesn't fall afoul of our stance on error handling, by all means.

Right now we don't say anything what to do, for instance, with two 
max-age directives? If this is an invalid header field instance, we 
should say so. If it's not, we should say how to handle that.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 12:12:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 12:12:16 GMT