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

Re: JFV and Common Structure specifications

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:46:58 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Message-ID: <44dafe6e-3049-287d-34c8-994bdf27c02c@gmx.de>
On 2016-11-21 03:38, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> In Seoul, we discussed both of these specs:
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kamp-httpbis-structure
>
> Draft minutes:
>   https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf97/minutes.md#draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-and-draft-kamp-httpbis-structure
>
> The feeling in the room was that we should abandon the JFV draft and adopt the structure draft in its place, with the understanding that it better reflected our current thinking in this area.
>
> If you have concerns about this, please bring them up on list ASAP; otherwise we'll proceed.

I'm +1 on anything that helps us to improve the current situation.

That said, we need to keep in mind that at least one of the arguments 
brought up against JSON applies to this proposal as well -- if we 
consider the underlying data model to be a dictionary, we'll have to 
figure out what to do when that parameter occurs multiple times.

Things are relatively simple when the parser controls this (it can do 
one of take first/take last/abort), but it'll get harder with streaming 
APIs.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 17:47:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 23 November 2016 17:48:05 UTC