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

Re: #305 Header ordering

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:39:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVYARLCwQQ+Rz_9dP7=zkzkyVFq58BoAUMasjm9Cv5KhQ@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC