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

Re: #343: chunk-extensions

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:46:53 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <39A8D9EE-6676-46CA-9B56-252A5321C671@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 08/02/2012, at 7:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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 :-)


$DIETY have mercy on their souls.


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:53:47 GMT

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