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

Re: Multiple header fields with the same field name - unwritten assumption about quoted commas in values?

From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:57:55 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiWzJqHr8VSzn6WFcWRGJEr59XiUyh+wGTDnf1ydVL=3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Piotr Dobrogost <p@ietf.dobrogost.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> On 16/01/2013, at 10:37 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>> We're talking about HTTP/1.x here, not 2.0. We can't retroactively make implementations non-conformant.
>>
>> Ah, yes.  But we could stop encouraging implementors to merge multiple
>> header instances.  Then we only have to say that it happens and
>> explain the pitfalls.
>
> It's extremely common to do something like:
>
> Cache-Control: max-age=60, must-revalidate
>
> Are you really saying that this should be discouraged?

No.  I'm saying that it's OK for apps to do that but not any other
entities (middleboxes), mostly because middleboxes can't possibly know
about headers that hadn't been registered when they were implemented.

Nico
--
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 23:58:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 January 2013 23:58:21 GMT