- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:39:15 -0800
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 21 November 2013 14:32, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > #1 and #3 are very similar. #1 arguably has some small marginal benefits > over #3 (as I've been attempting to point out, if poorly :) ), the most > important of which is that it is already implemented. I see other advantages for #3. The fact is that you need to implement it anyway (since comma-concatenation is still valid), and that it doesn't require additional code in the decoder seem like actual advantages, despite the risks.
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 22:39:42 UTC