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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:16:24 -0500
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Ian Clelland <iclelland@google.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@varnish-cache.org>
Message-Id: <230C725C-1D6B-4E83-A9A4-A901BD4A0404@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> On 23 Dec. 2016, at 12:39 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Link allows it, and IIRC some link relations take advantage of that (although I can't think of their names ATM).




--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 23 December 2016 18:16:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 23 December 2016 18:16:53 UTC