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

Re: JFV and Common Structure specifications

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:28:06 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Message-ID: <72656.1479886086@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CABkgnnXwOOmv3sJKrufs19ErUNA65iMm32aypRBH=z+F8mWGSQ@mail.gmail.com>, Martin Thomson writes:
>On 22 November 2016 at 20:51, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

>Let's not talk about policy and instead concentrate on cost-benefit.
>Mark has summarized the costs quite well, I think.  I would go further
>and point out that a recursive syntax with quoting cannot have
>elements that are skipped by a parser, which I find results in simply
>externalizing those costs.

Have you ever implemented SOM, EOM and EOT according to spec in any
of the programs you have written to deal with ASCII text ?

No ?

So can we agree that the cost of those three ASCII characters have
been very close to zero for you ?

Just because a standard contains an extension point, does not mean
you have to implement that extension - unless you actively decides
to use it.

And I keep repeating:  There should be no recursion in IETF defined
HTTP headers, but we should leave the extension there for end-to-end

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 07:28:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 23 November 2016 07:28:40 UTC