- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 20:20:22 +0200
- To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Hello Tommy, On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:46:11AM -0700, Tommy Pauly wrote: > I'd like to ask everyone to reply with which option they prefer of the of > following, so we can get a sense of the group's opinion: > > A. Leave the document as is, not defining empty header values for SH (as requested by the editors). As noted on the list, this can allow future revisions to add support. > B. Define empty header values for SH (as the issue requests). > C. Do not allow empty header values for SH, but add formal text to the document explaining how to handle empty values. > > Please evaluate these based on what you think will help us converge and ship > this document, and note that this is deciding how we define formal Structured > Headers, not all or previous HTTP headers. I'd prefer B first, then C as a fallback. I'm not strong on this, I just find it too bad to purposely not support a single feature which already works even if seldom used. But I won't make a fuss if we don't have it, this will only leave me with a feeling of half-finished work. Thanks, Willy
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2019 18:20:57 UTC