W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: #492: Alt-Svc header host restriction

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:25:16 +0200
Message-ID: <5399E27C.1040408@gmx.de>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-12 19:15, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 12 June 2014 06:33, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Can people live with that or should we try to come up with something more
>> elegant?
>
> What you have is reasonable either way.  Deconstructing the syntax
> further is OK too, though I always find the precedence order of commas
> and semi-colons to be completely unintuitive.

Indeed. But at least it's the same for a whole family of header fields.

>> PS: maybe it's time to start using JSON in header field values.
>
> You first :)

Maybe.

> p.s., I think we agreed to lift the restriction on other host names
> and move that to -encryption.

a) the restriction is gone, no? b) -encryption?

> p.p.s., Do we want q= on these?

Or define an ordering.

Speaking of which - is it ok that the frame only can carry on 
alternate-service?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 17:25:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:26 UTC