- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:38:52 +0200
- To: "Brian Smith" <brian@briansmith.org>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Brian Smith wrote: >It is encoded in the grammar. The names of the grammar productions do not >define the semantics. The extension-header rule could (should) be factored >out into Request, Response, and Trailer, but the resultant grammar will be >equivalent to the original. I disagree. >I think it makes a lot of sense to restrict the names of extension-headers >to be disjoint from at least the set of general-, request-, and response- >headers defined in the specification. Then an unconditionally-compliant >implementation could behave the way you describe. They can do so already, because the requirement is for unrecognized headers. If an implementation generates an error because it suspects a header value is malformed, then it does recognize the header. And merely noting the issue would happen outside the realm of the proto- col; the specification does not regulate what may or may not be put into a web server log file, for example. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 15:39:33 UTC