Re: Issue # 164: HTTP Method Case

The compressor needs updating, though :)
-=R


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Appendix A.1 of the current header compression draft shows "get" and
> not "GET" as the pre-filled value...
>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-00#appendix-A.1
>
> Regardless, this is not a compressor issue. It's a http semantic layer
> issue.
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree with Martin-- this data should be as it was in HTTP/1.1
> >
> > Reasoning:
> > 1) It works.
> > 2) The methods are so very extremely likely to already be represented in
> the
> > compressor, that we shouldn't much care about what is in them anyway.
> >
> > -=R
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Martin Thomson <
> martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3 July 2013 10:43, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Need to clarify whether or not HTTP methods in 2.0
> >> > are case sensitive or not.
> >>
> >> HTTP/2.0 is actually silent on the issue.  And I believe that it can
> >> remain so.
> >>
> >> HTTP/2.0 makes header field names lowercase (and mandates that), which
> >> is fine because that has a performance and compression advantage.  A
> >> similar argument could be made for any header field value, :method not
> >> being particularly special in this regard.
> >>
> >> In this specific case, if we were to mandate a particular case, I'd
> >> advocate uppercase.  I believe that some code breaks if it receives a
> >> 'get' instead of a 'GET', so uppercase would have to be the choice.
> >>
> >
>