- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:19:15 +1000
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 15 May 2018, at 5:13 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 2018-05-15 09:03, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> On 15 May 2018, at 5:00 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>> On 2018-05-15 07:42, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> SH doesn't allow empty header fields, FWIW. >>>> ... >>> >>> ...which makes it incompatible with the list rule in RFC 7230, no? >> In what sense? > > Because it says, that if you header is defined as > > #token > > you can send > > Foo: a > Foo: > Foo: b > > and it would be equivalent to > > Foo: a, b Ah. I didn't mean "empty header fields" in that sense -- rather, just Foo: (we REALLY need some terminology to cleanly differentiate between the various senses of "header") That said, SH doesn't allow that either, or: Foo: a,,b -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 07:19:44 UTC