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

Re: #305 Header ordering

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:59:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNf0ZXrM+5K9u9jTDjwr7-vrLNL_Wz6sk8jm9fbT1Kj4QQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I suspect we'll both remain biased towards each of #1 and #3.
Thankfully, in either case the marginal difference is small and both #1 and
#3 are substantially better than #2.
-=R


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 22:59:58 UTC

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