- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:26:55 -0700
- To: Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Oct 19, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Robert Sayre wrote: > The only downside I see to this partitioning is that the header > definitions are split up. I found that listing in 2616 pretty > convenient, but I suppose documents like the header registry are a > better reference these days. Yep, that is part of why I wanted to separate the message parsing requirements from the semantics -- there is no point in trying to present the lists as if they are complete. This way, the requirements on parsing can be stated once in general and only specifically mention the known exceptions (e.g., cookie headers have to remain as separate fields for historical reasons, ...). Part of the readability fixes needed for this revision is to integrate the IANA considerations and pointer to the registries that were defined post-2616. ....Roy
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2007 21:27:23 UTC