- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:19:24 +0200
- To: Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>, HTTP <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-08-29 17:20, Bence Béky wrote: > Hi, > >> Some more discussion here is here: >> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/16 > > Thanks for the clarification. I'm sorry I missed the discussion on GitHub. No need to. Discussion that is non-editorial is supposed to happen here. >>> Also, since "clear" clears entries including the ones in the same >>> header, why could there be multiple alt-values? Would instead of >>> >>> Alt-Svc = 1#alt-value >>> alt-value = clear / ( alternative *( OWS ";" OWS parameter ) ) >>> >>> the following: >>> >>> Alt-Svc = clear / 1#alt-value >>> alt-value = alternative *( OWS ";" OWS parameter ) >>> >>> not make more sense? >>> ... >> >> >> It would, but we are constrained by the HTTP header field semantics. A header field value is either list-shaped or it is not. We can't choose based on the field contents. > > Okay, that makes sense, thank you for the explanation. Bummer. > > By the way, if I understand correctly, "Alt-Svc = clear, > syntactically-inv\"alid-alt-value" would need to be ignored entirely > because it contains an alt-value which does not conform to the > grammar. However, chances are that there will be implementations that > ignore the second alt-value as soon as they parse "clear". Probably > does not make much difference though. Agreed. Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 29 August 2015 17:19:55 UTC