- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:02:15 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11/06/2012, at 10:51 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-06-11 14:44, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Assuming that the text isn't changing in substance, yes. >> >> I think this is verging on editorial; if anyone has concerns about this direction, please speak up; otherwise, Julian go ahead. >> ... > > It's a bit more than editorial, because it tries to address the mismatch between the ABNFs for predefined directives (special-cased), and extension directives (token *and* quoted-string). Ah. > > Highlighting these changes: > > Cache directives are identified by a token, to be compared case- > insensitively, and have an optional argument, that can use both token > and quoted-string syntax. Recipients MUST accept both forms. The MUST is going too far here. I think that individual parameters can (and do) constrain the syntax. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Cache-Control = 1#cache-directive > > cache-directive = token [ "=" ( token / quoted-string ) ] > > For the cache directives defined below, no argument is defined (nor > allowed) otherwise stated otherwise. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > 3.2.2.2. private > > Argument syntax: > > #field-name > > The private response directive indicates that the response message is > intended for a single user and MUST NOT be stored by a shared cache. > A private cache MAY store the response. > > If the private response directive specifies one or more field-names, > this requirement is limited to the field-values associated with the > listed response header fields. That is, a shared cache MUST NOT > store the specified field-names(s), whereas it MAY store the > remainder of the response message. > > The field-names given are not limited to the set of standard header > fields defined by this specification. Field names are case- > insensitive. > > Note: This usage of the word "private" only controls where the > response can be stored; it cannot ensure the privacy of the message > content. Also, private response directives with field-names are > often handled by implementations as if an unqualified private > directive was received; i.e., the special handling for the qualified > form is not widely implemented. > > Note: For compatibility with non-robust recipients, even a single- > entry list of field names SHOULD be sent using the quoted-string > syntax. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > .... > > Best regards, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 13:02:59 UTC