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

Re: #343: chunk-extensions

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:26:45 +0100
Message-ID: <4F318905.3000302@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-02-07 20:46, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Now<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/343>.
>
>
> On 07/02/2012, at 12:03 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> Right now, this is all we say about chunk-extensions (beyond the BNF, etc.):
>>
>>>    All HTTP/1.1 applications MUST be able to receive and decode the
>>>    "chunked" transfer-coding and MUST ignore chunk-ext extensions they
>>>    do not understand.
>>
>> Since this is an extensibility point, we should give guidance on how it should be used.
>>
>> I can't really see establishing a chunk-extension registry; they don't have any semantic, and AFAIK haven't really been used in anger.
>>
>> What do people think about adding advice along these lines:
>>
>> """
>> Use of chunk-extensions by senders is deprecated; they SHOULD NOT be sent and definition of new chunk-extensions is discouraged.
>> """
>>
>> ?

Works for me.

A future generation of HTTP spec authors can un-deprecate when needed :-)
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:30:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:55 GMT