- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:08:22 +1000
- 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>
On 13 Jun 2019, at 6:43 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > After thinking about this a bit more, I think this issue is backwards; it's asking why we don't support a specific syntax, rather than a specific data model. > > If people just want to make sure we can express an empty list in SH, that's pretty easy; we can say that the absence of a list-based SH field is equivalent to an empty list. > > However, if people want to map a *specific* syntax to an empty list (namely, a header field name with an empty or whitespace-only value), I'd like to understand why. There's only been one example given, and there isn't any deployment of the specified semantics AFAIK -- reinforcing the notion that doing so is bad practice. And, as a reminder (sorry for sounding like a broken record), the whole point of SH is that we're not mapping every conceivable field value into the data model; just the conventions that are useful (in other words, paving the cowpaths). > > Which bucket are the people who are clamouring for this in? See proposal at: <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/817> -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2019 07:08:53 UTC