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

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00 for general structured data

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:39:41 +0100
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Ian Clelland <iclelland@google.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@varnish-cache.org>
Message-ID: <35e612ec-5452-2fd3-358d-5285bcb5225d@gmx.de>
On 2016-12-22 19:38, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <CAK_TSXLJcDkUCpn5f79DBtnGjjPLtb1fEv_-Akfg4cPbboFVvg@mail.gmail.com>
> , Ian Clelland writes:
>
>> With JFV, I'd declare a policy with a header value like this:
>>
>> {"feature1": ["http://origin1","http://origin2"]], "feature2": ["http://origin3", "http://origin4"], "feature3": []}
>
>> Trying my best to shoehorn this structure into CS, I do notice that nothing
>> in the grammar or the text says that duplicate identifiers in an
>> <h1_element> aren't allowed, so I suppose I could write something like this:
>>
>>  >feature1;o="http://origin1";o="http://origin2",feature2;o="http://origin3";o="http://origin4",feature3<
>
> That's how I would do it as well.

Using identical parameter names sounds like a bad idea; I'm not aware of 
any header field that currently uses this format, and it also seems to 
contradict the "dictionary" data model.

Why not:

  feature1; o="http://origin1 http://origin2", feature2; 
o="http://origin3 http://origin4", feature3

?

 > ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 23 December 2016 17:40:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 23 December 2016 17:40:21 UTC