- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:25:16 +0200
- 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