W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

RE: Multiple Headers

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:06:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNc+kgVCnh=vYiy5pjUgfjFkU6UMkwqoze_rgRt1UsgESA@mail.gmail.com>
To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
As Hervé said-- certain headers are funny and exceptional.

Essentially: only the new mechanisms are going to work for all headers
without exception, but that won't stop the old mechanisms from working.
On Jun 17, 2013 9:53 AM, "RUELLAN Herve" <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr> wrote:

> Cookies behave differently from the other HTTP headers when it comes to
> multiple occurrences. So comma-separated instances will not work for the
> Set-Cookie or the Cookie headers. It will work for the other headers
> allowing multiple occurrences though.
>
> Hervé.
> ________________________________________
> From: David Morris [dwm@xpasc.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 18:35
> To: HTTP Working Group
> Subject: RE: Multiple Headers
>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, RUELLAN Herve wrote:
>
> > There is also the possibility to use a single header value with
> coma-separated instances.
>
> I don't think that will work. I'm pretty sure that multiple set-cookie
> headers can't be folded into a single value which is what is required
> to use commas as the value delimiter.
>
> >
> > I will add a note on this subject in the spec.
> >
> > Herv?.
> > ________________________________
> > From: James M Snell [jasnell@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 17:13
> > To: Jeff Pinner
> > Cc: HTTP Working Group
> > Subject: Re: Multiple Headers
> >
> >
> > It is currently unspecified. There are two ways of doing multiple values
> in the current draft that may change a bit once we get into the type
> codecs. Currently you can either null separate the instances in a single
> header value, or you can use separate opcodes for each (treat them as
> separate headers). The latter can be far more efficient in the encoding.
> For now, I'd recommend the separate opcode approach and revisit it when we
> discuss type codecs in more detail.
> >
> > On Jun 16, 2013 7:48 AM, "Jeff Pinner" <jpinner@twitter.com<mailto:
> jpinner@twitter.com>> wrote:
> > The SPDY spec defined how multiple headers with the same name were to be
> encoded (as one header with the value-field containing multiple
> null-separated entries).
> >
> > Is this the expected encoding for
> draft-ruellan-http-header-compression-00.txt?
> >
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 17:07:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC