- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 06:52:28 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 24.01.2023 01:01, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> On 24 Jan 2023, at 3:09 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> What about a dictionary, where you're only looking for "x" (expected to >> be an integer), but the sender adds an extension parameter "y" as sf-date? >> >> A conforming parser (of the current spec) will reject the whole field >> value, and the recipient will not be able to see the value for "x". > > If you are parsing a field that uses Date, its specification will refer to sf-bis, not RFC8941. Therefore, you will need to use an implementation that claims conformance to sf-bis. What's the problem? The problem is that a generic library will not lookup the header definition. IMHO an important point of SF is that we can throw fields at the parser without *any* out of band information. As we can see, this only works great until we extend the format. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2023 05:52:47 UTC