- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 09:27:37 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- 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 2018-05-15 09:19, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > >> 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") > ... "single field value" vs "aggregated field value"? Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 07:28:44 UTC