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: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:49:53 +0100
Message-ID: <4F323731.2070706@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-02-07 21:46, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> 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.
> ...

:-)

Proposed change: 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/343/343.diff>

Best regard, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 08:53:19 GMT

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