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

Re: #305 Header ordering

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:01:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbd3yVyi7VUZXKwoCMxtZyG5R3m7GZwA+eD7QsXR7VPBVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
That's why going with the default option of requiring strict ordering is
the right approach. Only the header fields we absolutely know do not care
about ordering would be impacted. Most impls, I suspect, will simply choose
not to reorder anything.
On Nov 22, 2013 8:55 AM, "Mike Bishop" <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  Our RFC2616bis says this:
>
> The order in which header fields with the same field name are received is therefore significant to the interpretation of the combined field value; a proxy MUST NOT change the order of these field values when forwarding a message.
>
> If 1.1 says that order is always significant and we’re not supposed to be
> changing 1.1 semantics….
>
>  Sent from Windows Mail
>
>   *From:* Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
> *Sent:* ‎Friday‎, ‎November‎ ‎22‎, ‎2013 ‎6‎:‎22‎ ‎AM
> *To:* ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>
>  On 22/11/2013 4:37 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > To be clear - what makes me somewhat comfortable with this approach is
> that the default is that order is preserved; only if you know that ordering
> *is* insignificant are you allowed to break it up.
> >
>
> +1.
>
> Amos
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 17:02:13 UTC

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