W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > May 2010

Re: ABNF for HTTP headers

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:02:54 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTim1sNqQ1gYetTfd1aMq3bBj0GHbPSJdiCQNlCQ5@mail.gmail.com>
To: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
2010/5/20 RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Hi Silvia, all,
>
> [That has again been discussed today on IRC, so I'm answering to this mainly
> for the record]
>
>> for media fragment URIs, the spec defines temporal specs as follows:
>> t=npt:10,20
>> but in the HTTP header examples, we have: t:npt=10,20 .
>
> Indeed, the syntax is different, but should not be seen as curious. Our
> rationale is to follow respectively the URI fragment syntax and the HTTP
> header syntax (e.g. a normal byte ranges request). There is no reason that
> the URI syntax should be the same than the header syntax. And there will be
> no code optimization anyway, since what can be written in a URI and what can
> be written in a header have different constraints (think about the %-encoded
> strings). Since there must be some re-writing that should happen anyway, we
> can make the header syntax very different that the URI syntax, as soon as we
> have a good reason to do so. Our 'good' reason is to align with the current
> syntax of the header :-)

I've defined the ABNF in this way. I just stumble across this every
single time I look at the headers and the URLs they encode.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 01:03:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:38 GMT