We're talking about HTTP/1.x here, not 2.0. We can't retroactively make implementations non-conformant. Cheers, On 16/01/2013, at 10:22 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> Saying that headers can only be combined under certain circumstances doesn't mean that they're required to be combined. > > It might help to be able to say that all new headers must be > mergeable. That is: how can a proxy or what have you, know whether > it's OK to merge a given header's multiple instances? And I think the > answer is as Poul said: you should never do it. But then shouldn't we > say so? > > Whatever was the point of this feature in the first place? Was it a > form of header compression? If so, isn't it best to stop merging > multiple instances of headers and just go with whatever header > compression scheme we settle on? > > Nico > -- -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 23:29:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 January 2013 23:29:10 GMT