Re: RFC 2616, partitioned

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.


Received on Sunday, 21 October 2007 21:27:23 UTC