W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-jfv

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:07:26 +0000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <08192D28-1158-42D7-999F-CAECC80752C7@lukasa.co.uk>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

> On 11 Mar 2016, at 06:02, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> There's already been support for it demonstrated at the meetings we've talked about it. Any additional thoughts?

In general I think this is a good idea and I’m +1 on it. I think the reasoning for the implicit array markers might want to be elaborated on because it took me a few moments to work it out (it’s to allow header field coalescing), and without it it’s hard to understand why a new specification was required for this at all.

That, also, is a question this RFC needs to answer: why is simply throwing JSON into a header value insufficient? The *actual* answer is that it doesn’t behave well in lots of edge cases (newlines in strings etc. etc.), but if this document doesn’t say that it risks a lot of readers concluding that the IETF spent 10 pages saying “put JSON in header field values”, which isn’t true.


Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 10:07:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:11 UTC